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.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: To compare the responses in knee joint muscle activation patterns to different perturbations during gait in healthy subjects.SCOPE: Nine healthy participants were subjected to perturbed walking on a split-belt treadmill. Four perturbation types were applied, each at five intensities. The activations of seven muscles surrounding the knee were measured using surface EMG. The responses in muscle activation were expressed by calculating mean, peak, co-contraction (CCI) and perturbation responses (PR) values. PR captures the responses relative to unperturbed gait. Statistical parametric mapping analysis was used to compare the muscle activation patterns between conditions.RESULTS: Perturbations evoked only small responses in muscle activation, though higher perturbation intensities yielded a higher mean activation in five muscles, as well as higher PR. Different types of perturbation led to different responses in the rectus femoris, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius. The participants had lower CCI just before perturbation compared to the same phase of unperturbed gait.CONCLUSIONS: Healthy participants respond to different perturbations during gait with small adaptations in their knee joint muscle activation patterns. This study provides insights in how the muscles are activated to stabilize the knee when challenged. Furthermore it could guide future studies in determining aberrant muscle activation in patients with knee disorders.
DOCUMENT
Objective: Psychophysical lift capacity tests are lifting tests in which the performance, expressed in Newtons, is divided by the perceived exertion, expressed on a Borg scale. The aim of this study was to analyse test-retest reliability of psychophysical lift capacity tests.Subjects: Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (n=20) and healthy subjects (n=20).Methods: Psychophysical lift capacity tests were assessed during a back school intake at the Centre for Rehabilitation of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Patients on the waiting list and healthy subjects were assessed twice, with a 2-week interval between assessments. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. An ICC ≥0.75 was considered as an acceptable reliability. Limits of agreement as a measure for natural variation were calculated.Results: The psychophysical static and dynamic lift capacity tests showed good reliability (ICC ≥0.75). The limits of agreement are substantial, indicating a considerable natural variation between test-sessions for all psychophysical tests.Conclusion: The psychophysical static lift capacity and dynamic lifting capacity are reliable instruments for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects. However, a substantial amount of natural variation should be taken into account between 2 test sessions when interpreting the test results clinically.
DOCUMENT
