<0.001), with intraclass correlation coefficient values ranging from 0.06 to 0.63. For 16 of the 27 equations, the change in eCRF was significantly different from the change in directly measured CRF. The median percentage of participants correctly classified as having increased, decreased, or no change in CRF was 56% (range, 39%-61%). Conclusions Variability was observed in the accuracy between nonexercise prediction equations and the ability of equations to detect changes in CRF. Considering the appreciable error that prediction equations had with detecting even directional changes in CRF, these results suggest eCRF may have limited clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peterman et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: