A comparison between two exercise tests on cycle; a computerised test versus the Åstand test.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift

Standard

A comparison between two exercise tests on cycle; a computerised test versus the Åstand test. / Wisén, Anita; Wohlfart, Björn.

I: Clin Physiol, Vol. 15, Nr. 1, 1995, s. 91-102.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison between two exercise tests on cycle; a computerised test versus the Åstand test.

AU - Wisén, Anita

AU - Wohlfart, Björn

N1 - The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Division V (013230900), Division of Physiotherapy (Closed 2012) (013042000), Department of Clinical Physiology (Lund) (013013000)

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Two submaximal cycle ergometer test methods, the Astrand nomogram test and a computerized two-point extrapolation test (Cat Eye ergociser, commercially available), were compared in order to determine agreement and repeatability of estimates of maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max). Twenty healthy women, divided into two groups of ten according to their age (mean 35.3 and mean 46.9), performed test-retest with each method. In both methods the VO2max was estimated from workload and the corresponding heart rate. The correlation between the VO2max using the two methods was high (r = 0.85, P < 0.001). Some of the estimates derived from the computerized test had large errors, which reduced the agreement between the tests. The variation (2SD), expressed in per cent of mean VO2max was 19% for the Astrand test and 34% for the computerized test. Furthermore, the computerized test underestimated the VO2max with approximately 5 ml kg-1 min-1 compared with the Astrand test. Due to this underestimation and the greater variation of the VO2max in the computerized test, it is not recommended to use the two methods interchangeably in clinical practice.

AB - Two submaximal cycle ergometer test methods, the Astrand nomogram test and a computerized two-point extrapolation test (Cat Eye ergociser, commercially available), were compared in order to determine agreement and repeatability of estimates of maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max). Twenty healthy women, divided into two groups of ten according to their age (mean 35.3 and mean 46.9), performed test-retest with each method. In both methods the VO2max was estimated from workload and the corresponding heart rate. The correlation between the VO2max using the two methods was high (r = 0.85, P < 0.001). Some of the estimates derived from the computerized test had large errors, which reduced the agreement between the tests. The variation (2SD), expressed in per cent of mean VO2max was 19% for the Astrand test and 34% for the computerized test. Furthermore, the computerized test underestimated the VO2max with approximately 5 ml kg-1 min-1 compared with the Astrand test. Due to this underestimation and the greater variation of the VO2max in the computerized test, it is not recommended to use the two methods interchangeably in clinical practice.

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 91

EP - 102

JO - Clin Physiol

JF - Clin Physiol

IS - 1

ER -