Fisher Institute of Health and Well-Being, Ball State University, USA.
College of Health, Ball State University, USA.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021 Apr 10;28(2):142–148. doi: 10.1177/2047487319881242. Epub 2019 Oct 22.
A recent scientific statement suggests clinicians should routinely assess cardiorespiratory fitness using at least non-exercise prediction equations. However, no study has comprehensively compared the many non-exercise cardiorespiratory fitness prediction equations to directly-measured cardiorespiratory fitness using data from a single cohort. Our purpose was to compare the accuracy of non-exercise prediction equations to directly-measured cardiorespiratory fitness and evaluate their ability to classify an individual's cardiorespiratory fitness.
The sample included 2529 tests from apparently healthy adults (42% female, aged 45.4 ± 13.1 years (mean±standard deviation). Estimated cardiorespiratory fitness from 28 distinct non-exercise prediction equations was compared with directly-measured cardiorespiratory fitness, determined from a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Analysis included the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to compare estimated cardiorespiratory fitness with directly-measured cardiorespiratory fitness, Pearson product moment correlations, standard error of estimate values, and the percentage of participants correctly placed into three fitness categories.
All of the estimated cardiorespiratory fitness values from the equations were correlated to directly measured cardiorespiratory fitness (p < 0.001) although the R2 values ranged from 0.25-0.70 and the estimated cardiorespiratory fitness values from 27 out of 28 equations were statistically different compared with directly-measured cardiorespiratory fitness. The range of standard error of estimate values was 4.1-6.2 ml·kg-1·min-1. On average, only 52% of participants were correctly classified into the three fitness categories when using estimated cardiorespiratory fitness.
Differences exist between non-exercise prediction equations, which influences the accuracy of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness. The present analysis can assist researchers and clinicians with choosing a non-exercise prediction equation appropriate for epidemiological or population research. However, the error and misclassification associated with estimated cardiorespiratory fitness suggests future research is needed on the clinical utility of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness.
最近的一份科学声明表明,临床医生应常规使用至少非运动预测方程来评估心肺适能。然而,尚无研究全面比较许多非运动心肺适能预测方程与使用单个队列数据直接测量的心肺适能。我们的目的是比较非运动预测方程与直接测量的心肺适能的准确性,并评估它们对个体心肺适能分类的能力。
该样本包括 2529 项来自明显健康成年人的测试(42%为女性,年龄 45.4±13.1 岁(平均值±标准差))。使用 28 种不同的非运动预测方程估计的心肺适能与通过心肺运动试验直接测量的心肺适能进行比较。分析包括 Benjamini-Hochberg 程序比较估计的心肺适能与直接测量的心肺适能、Pearson 积矩相关系数、估计值的标准误差值以及正确归入三个健身类别中的参与者的百分比。
所有方程的估计心肺适能值均与直接测量的心肺适能相关(p<0.001),尽管 R2 值范围为 0.25-0.70,并且 28 个方程中的 27 个估计心肺适能值与直接测量的心肺适能值存在统计学差异。估计值的标准误差值范围为 4.1-6.2 ml·kg-1·min-1。平均而言,仅 52%的参与者在使用估计心肺适能时正确归入三个健身类别。
非运动预测方程之间存在差异,这会影响估计心肺适能的准确性。本分析可以帮助研究人员和临床医生选择适用于流行病学或人群研究的非运动预测方程。然而,估计心肺适能的误差和分类错误表明需要进一步研究估计心肺适能的临床实用性。