IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0247057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is a verification phase useful for confirming maximal oxygen uptake in apparently healthy adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Victor A B Costa
  • Adrian W Midgley
  • Sean Carroll
  • Todd A Astorino
  • Tainah de Paula
  • Paulo Farinatti
  • Felipe A Cunha

Abstract

Background: The ‘verification phase’ has emerged as a supplementary procedure to traditional maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) criteria to confirm that the highest possible VO2 has been attained during a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Objective: To compare the highest VO2 responses observed in different verification phase procedures with their preceding CPET for confirmation that VO2max was likely attained. Methods: MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane (accessed through Wiley) were searched for relevant studies that involved apparently healthy adults, VO2max determination by indirect calorimetry, and a CPET on a cycle ergometer or treadmill that incorporated an appended verification phase. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the pooled effect of the CPET and verification phase on the highest mean VO2. Meta-analysis effect size calculations incorporated random-effects assumptions due to the diversity of experimental protocols employed. I2 was calculated to determine the heterogeneity of VO2 responses, and a funnel plot was used to check the risk of bias, within the mean VO2 responses from the primary studies. Subgroup analyses were used to test the moderator effects of sex, cardiorespiratory fitness, exercise modality, CPET protocol, and verification phase protocol. Results: Eighty studies were included in the systematic review (total sample of 1,680 participants; 473 women; age 19–68 yr.; VO2max 3.3 ± 1.4 L/min or 46.9 ± 12.1 mL·kg-1·min-1). The highest mean VO2 values attained in the CPET and verification phase were similar in the 54 studies that were meta-analyzed (mean difference = 0.03 [95% CI = -0.01 to 0.06] L/min, P = 0.15). Furthermore, the difference between the CPET and verification phase was not affected by any of the potential moderators such as verification phase intensity (P = 0.11), type of recovery utilized (P = 0.36), VO2max verification criterion adoption (P = 0.29), same or alternate day verification procedure (P = 0.21), verification-phase duration (P = 0.35), or even according to sex, cardiorespiratory fitness level, exercise modality, and CPET protocol (P = 0.18 to P = 0.71). The funnel plot indicated that there was no significant publication bias. Conclusions: The verification phase seems a robust procedure to confirm that the highest possible VO2 has been attained during a ramp or continuous step-incremented CPET. However, given the high concordance between the highest mean VO2 achieved in the CPET and verification phase, findings from the current study would question its necessity in all testing circumstances. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42019123540.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor A B Costa & Adrian W Midgley & Sean Carroll & Todd A Astorino & Tainah de Paula & Paulo Farinatti & Felipe A Cunha, 2021. "Is a verification phase useful for confirming maximal oxygen uptake in apparently healthy adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-33, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0247057
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247057
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247057&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0247057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas A Jamnick & Javier Botella & David B Pyne & David J Bishop, 2018. "Manipulating graded exercise test variables affects the validity of the lactate threshold and V˙O2peak," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cesare Granata & Nikeisha J. Caruana & Javier Botella & Nicholas A. Jamnick & Kevin Huynh & Jujiao Kuang & Hans A. Janssen & Boris Reljic & Natalie A. Mellett & Adrienne Laskowski & Tegan L. Stait & A, 2021. "High-intensity training induces non-stoichiometric changes in the mitochondrial proteome of human skeletal muscle without reorganisation of respiratory chain content," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0247057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.