| Title |
Evaluation of the Oxycon Mobile metabolic system against the Douglas bag method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-009-1326-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hans Rosdahl, Lennart Gullstrand, Jane Salier-Eriksson, Patrik Johansson, Peter Schantz |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate two versions of the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (OMPS1 and OMPS2) in a wide range of oxygen uptake, using the Douglas bag method (DBM) as criterion method. The metabolic variables VO2, VCO2 respiratory exchange ratio and VE were measured during submaximal and maximal cycle ergometer exercise with sedentary, moderately trained individuals and athletes as participants. Test-retest reliability was investigated using the OMPS1. The coefficients of variation varied between 2 and 7% for the metabolic parameters measured at different work rates and resembled those obtained with the DBM. With the OMPS1, systematic errors were found in the determination of VO2 and VCO2 At submaximal work rates VO2 was 6-14% and VCO2 5-9% higher than with the DBM. At VO2(max) both VO2 and VCO2 were slightly lower as compared to DBM (-4.1 and -2.8% respectively). With OMPS2, VO2 was determined accurately within a wide measurement range (about 1-5.5 L min(-1)), while VCO2 was overestimated (3-7%). VE was accurate at submaximal work rates with both OMPS1 and OMPS2, whereas underestimations (4-8%) were noted at VO2(max). The present study is the first to demonstrate that a wide range of VO2 can be measured accurately with the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (second generation). Future investigations are suggested to clarify reasons for the small errors noted for VE and VCO2 versus the Douglas bag measurements, and also to gain knowledge of the performance of the device under applied and non-laboratory conditions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 49 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Engineering | 8 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2013.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,159
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,087
of 172,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#24
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 172,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.