Key result
Clinician determination of anaerobic threshold on CPET shows acceptable inter-observer variability with ~8% technical error.
Observational (n=21)
Effect estimate: Technical error of measurement 8.1% (95% CI 7.4-8.9)
Experienced clinicians demonstrate acceptable inter-observer variability when determining the anaerobic threshold from cardiopulmonary exercise tests.
May support consistent anaerobic threshold measurement by experts; leaves open generalizability to routine practice.
The variability between observers in the interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise tests may impact upon clinical decision making and affect the risk stratification and peri-operative management of a patient. The purpose of this study was to quantify the inter-reader variability in the determination of the anaerobic threshold (V-slope method). A series of 21 cardiopulmonary exercise tests from patients attending a surgical pre-operative assessment clinic were read independently by nine experienced clinicians regularly involved in clinical decision making. The grand mean for the anaerobic threshold was 10.5 ml O(2).kg body mass(-1).min(-1). The technical error of measurement was 8.1% (circa 0.9 ml.kg(-1).min(-1); 90% confidence interval, 7.4-8.9%). The mean absolute difference between readers was 4.5% with a typical random error of 6.5% (6.0-7.2%). We conclude that the inter-observer variability for experienced clinicians determining the anaerobic threshold from cardiopulmonary exercise tests is acceptable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sinclair et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Surgical pre-operative assessment (n=21). Cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation (V-slope method) was evaluated on Technical error of measurement for anaerobic threshold (Technical error of measurement 8.1%, 95% CI 7.4-8.9). Determination of the anaerobic threshold from cardiopulmonary exercise tests by experienced clinicians showed acceptable inter-observer variability, with a technical error of measurement of 8.1%.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: