Military Performance Division, US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), 10 General Green Ave., Natick, MA 01760, USA.
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), 1299 Bethel Valley Rd., Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA.
Sensors (Basel). 2023 Feb 23;23(5):2472. doi: 10.3390/s23052472.
There are several methods available to assess energy expenditure, all associated with inherent pros and cons that must be adequately considered for use in specific environments and populations. A requirement of all methods is that they must be valid and reliable in their capability to accurately measure oxygen consumption (VO) and carbon dioxide production (VCO). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the mobile CO/O Breath and Respiration Analyzer (COBRA) relative to a criterion system (Parvomedics TrueOne 2400, PARVO) with additional measurements to compare the COBRA to a portable system (Vyaire Medical, Oxycon Mobile, OXY). Fourteen volunteers with a mean of 24 years old, body weight of 76 kg, and a VO of 3.8 L∙min performed four repeated trials of progressive exercises. Simultaneous steady-state measurements of VO, VCO, and minute ventilation (V) by the COBRA/PARVO and OXY systems were conducted at rest, while walking (23-36% VO), jogging (49-67% VO), and running (60-76% VO). Data collection was randomized by the order of system tested (COBRA/PARVO and OXY) and was standardized to maintain work intensity (rest to run) progression across study trials and days (two trials/day over two days). Systematic bias was examined to assess the accuracy of the COBRA to PARVO and OXY to PARVO across work intensities. Intra- and inter-unit variability were assessed with interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and a 95% limit of agreement intervals. The COBRA and PARVO produced similar measures for VO (Bias ± SD, 0.01 ± 0.13 L·min; 95% LoA, (-0.24, 0.27 L·min); R = 0.982), VCO (0.06 ± 0.13 L·min; (-0.19, 0.31 L·min); R = 0.982), V (2.07 ± 2.76 L·min; (-3.35, 7.49 L·min); R = 0.991) across work intensities. There was a linear bias across both the COBRA and OXY with increased work intensity. The coefficient of variation for the COBRA ranged from 7 to 9% across measures for VO, VCO, and V. COBRA was reliable across measurements for VO (ICC = 0.825; 0.951), VCO (ICC = 0.785; 0.876), and V (ICC = 0.857; 0.945) for intra-unit reliability, respectively. The COBRA is an accurate and reliable mobile system for measuring gas exchange at rest and across a range of work intensities.
有几种方法可用于评估能量消耗,所有这些方法都有其内在的优缺点,在特定环境和人群中使用时必须充分考虑。所有方法的一个要求是,它们必须具有在准确测量耗氧量 (VO) 和二氧化碳产生量 (VCO) 方面的有效性和可靠性。本研究的目的是评估移动 CO/O 呼吸分析仪 (COBRA) 的可靠性和有效性,该分析仪与标准系统(Parvomedics TrueOne 2400,PARVO)进行比较,并进行了额外的测量,以将 COBRA 与便携式系统(Vyaire Medical,Oxycon Mobile,OXY)进行比较。 14 名志愿者的平均年龄为 24 岁,体重为 76 公斤,VO 为 3.8 L/min,进行了四次渐进运动试验。在休息时,同时通过 COBRA/PARVO 和 OXY 系统进行 VO、VCO 和分钟通气量 (V) 的稳态测量,而在步行 (23-36% VO)、慢跑 (49-67% VO) 和跑步 (60-76% VO) 时。数据采集按测试系统的顺序随机进行(COBRA/PARVO 和 OXY),并标准化以保持研究试验和天(每天两次试验,共两天)的工作强度进展。通过检查系统偏差来评估 COBRA 对 PARVO 和 OXY 对 PARVO 在不同工作强度下的准确性。使用组内相关系数 (ICC) 和 95% 一致性界限区间评估了单元内和单元间的可变性。COBRA 和 PARVO 对 VO(偏差±SD,0.01±0.13 L/min;95%LoA,(-0.24,0.27 L/min);R = 0.982)、VCO(偏差±SD,0.06±0.13 L/min;(-0.19,0.31 L/min);R = 0.982)、V(偏差±SD,2.07±2.76 L/min;(-3.35,7.49 L/min);R = 0.991)产生了相似的测量值,这三个参数的工作强度呈线性偏差。COBRA 和 OXY 的变异系数均在 7% 到 9% 之间,适用于 VO、VCO 和 V 的测量。COBRA 在 VO(ICC = 0.825;0.951)、VCO(ICC = 0.785;0.876)和 V(ICC = 0.857;0.945)的测量方面具有良好的可靠性,分别。COBRA 是一种准确可靠的移动系统,可在休息时和各种工作强度下测量气体交换。