3.9 Article

Association between Modified Shuttle Walk Test and cardiorespiratory fitness in overweight/obese adults with primary hypertension: EXERDIET-HTA study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2017.01.008

关键词

Equation for estimation; field test; peak oxygen uptake

资金

  1. University of the Basque Country [GIU14/21, EHU14/08]
  2. Government of the Basque Country (SAIOTEK) [SAI12/217]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aims of the study were to evaluate the relationship between Modified Shuttle Walk Test (MSWT) with peak oxygen uptake ((V) over dot O-2peak) in overweight/obese people with primary hypertension (HTN) and to develop an equation for the MSWT to predict (V) over dot O-2peak. Participants (N = 256, 53.9 +/- 8.1 years old) with HTN and overweight/obesity performed a cardiorespiratory exercise test to peak exertion on an upright bicycle ergometer using an incremental ramp protocol and the 15-level MSWT. The formula of Singh et al was used as a template to predict (V) over dot O-2peak, and a new equation was generated from the measured (V) over dot O-2peak-MSWT relationship in this investigation. The correlation between measured' and predicted (V) over dot O-2peak for Singh et al equation was moderate (r = 0.60, P <.001) with a standard error of the estimate (SEE) of 4.92 mL.kg(-1) minute(-1), SEE% = 21%. The correlation between MSWT and measured (V) over dot O-2peak as well as for the new equation was strong (r = 0.72, P <.001) with a SEE of 4.35 mL.kg(-1) minute(-1), SEE % = 19%. These results indicate that MSWT does not accurately predict functional capacity in overweight/obese people with HTN and questions the validity of using this test to evaluate exercise intolerance. A more accurate determination from a new equation in the current study incorporating more variables from MSWT to estimate (V) over dot O-2peak has been performed but still results in substantial error. (C) 2017 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据