These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validation of a new cycle ergometer.
    Author: Glaner MF, Silva RA.
    Journal: Int J Sports Med; 2011 Feb; 32(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 21165801.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to test the concurrent validity of the ICBE compared to the Monark(®) cycle ergometer by indirect dynamic calibration. 42 men were randomly submitted to 2 maximal stress tests with increments of 50 W at 2-min intervals. One test was performed on the Monark(®) bicycle (834/E) and the other on the ICBE. Cardiovascular, perceived exertion and hemodynamic responses were compared between the 2 bicycles. No differences (p>0.05) were observed in resting heart rate (HR), maximum HR, peak oxygen uptake (VO(2P) L·min(-1) and VO(2P) mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)), and number of stages completed. High correlations (r>0.85) were found between HR and VO (2P). Residual analysis indicated strong agreement between the 2 cycle ergometers in terms of VO(2P) L·min(-1) [-0.36-0.30] and VO(2P) mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) [-4.98-4.46]. Residual dispersion (r=0.25 for both) showed that the mathematical differences in VO(2P) L·min(-1) and VO(2P) mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) between cycle ergometers were independent. The correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (R(2)) between VO(2P) L·min(-1) (r=0.90; R (2)=0.80) and VO(2P) mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) (r=0.90; R(2)=0.81) obtained for the 2 cycle ergometers were high, whereas the standard error of the estimate was low (0.186 L·min(-1) and 2.56 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1), respectively). The ICBE presents concurrent validity for use in submaximal and maximal cardiopulmonary tests.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]