Introduction: Reference values for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters provide the comparative basis for answering important questions concerning the normalcy of exercise responses in patients, and significantly impacts the clinical decision-making process. Areas covered: The aim of this study was to provide an updated systematic review of the literature on reference values for CPET parameters in healthy subjects across the life span. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, and PEDro databases were performed for articles describing reference values for CPET published between March 2014 and February 2019. Expert opinion: Compared to the review published in 2014, more data have been published in the last five years compared to the 35 years before. However, there is still a lot of progress to be made. Quality can be further improved by performing a power analysis, a good quality assurance of equipment and methodologies, and by validating the developed reference equation in an independent (sub)sample. Methodological quality of future studies can be further improved by measuring and reporting the level of physical activity, by reporting values for different racial groups within a cohort as well as by the exclusion of smokers in the sample studied. Normal reference ranges should be well defined in consensus statements.
In Social Work research there is a strong debate on the distinctiveness and methodological quality, and how to address the dilemma of rigour and practice relevance. Given the nature of Social Work the field has developed a characteristic research culture that puts emphasis on giving voice to service users and disseminating research knowledge in practice, especially in a stream of so called practice-based research. However, there is no consensus on how to best contribute to the practice of Social Work through research and at the same time producing rigourous scientific outcomes, resulting in methodological pluralism. Studying the perceptions of Social Work researchers on their role, the aims and values of Social Work research and their research approach, provides insight into the methodological pluralism of Social Work research. Thirty-four professors specialising in practice-based Social Work research participated in a Q methodology study. Q methodology combines qualitative and quantitative methods. It helped reveal and describe divergent views as well as consensus. The analysis led to the identification of three differing viewpoints on Social Work research, which have been given the following denominators: The Substantiator, The Change Agent and The Enlightener. The viewpoints provide researchers in the field of Social Work with a framework in which they can position themselves in the methodological pluralism. Researchers state that the viewpoints are helpful in clarifying perspectives on good research, facilitate the discourse on methodological choices to further develop and strengthen Social Work research as a scientific discipline
