ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine1996
The place of perceived exertion ratings in exercise prescription for cardiac transplant patients before and after training.
Article in British journal of sports medicine, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of ratings of perceived exertion for predicting maximal work rate and prescribing exercise intensity in patients taking atenolol.British journal of sports medicine · 1997Trial
- Standardised Exercise Prescription for Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome and/or Heart Failure: A Consensus Statement from the EXPERT Working Group.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Validity of Ratings of Perceived Exertion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of novel physiotherapy and physical rehabilitation · 2014Article
- A critique of RPE as a basis of exercise prescription.European journal of applied physiology · 2013Article
- Pilot study: can older inactive adults learn how to reach the required intensity of physical activity guideline?Clinical interventions in aging · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHeart rate provides a poor guide to exercise prescription after cardiac transplantation. This study explores whether the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) provides useful alternative information.
methodsBorg's original categoric scale was applied to 36 male patients [T, age 47(SD 9 years] as they performed a progressive cycle ergometer test an average of seven months (range two to 23 months) after cardiac transplantation. The test was repeated after 16(7) months of progressive exercise centred rehabilitation. Sedentary but healthy controls [C, n = 45, age 45(7) years] performed a similar progressive cycle test.
resultsInitially, 13 RPE units corresponded to 66(12)% of peak VO2 in T and 50(11)% in C. Rehabilitation augmented peak VO2 (by 19%) and estimated lean body mass (by 3.5%) in the cardiac transplant patients. The increase of heart rate (HR) at 13 RPE units [delta HR = 10(17) beats.min-1] showed moderate correlations with gains of lean mass (r = 0.72) and gains of peak VO2 (r = 0.58). The relative oxygen intake at 13 RPE units remained unchanged at 68(12)% of peak VO2.
conclusionsLarge inter-individual variations of RPE at a given VO2 limit the value of perceived exertion in exercise prescription. Ratings seem best restricted to fine tuning fixed distance/fixed speed exercise prescriptions in patients undergoing rehabilitation after cardiac transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.