Thiessen Johan S, Guluzade Nasimi A, Faricier Robin, Keir Daniel A
School of Kinesiology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2025 Feb;35(2):e70019. doi: 10.1111/sms.70019.
We assessed the validity, reliability, and transferability of gas exchange and ventilatory variables from two commonly used metabolic measurement systems (COSMED Quark and VO2Master Pro). Two identical devices from each system were independently connected to a metabolic simulator (VacuMed), and 2 min of steady-state data was recorded at simulated oxygen uptake (V̇O) of 1, 2, 3, and 4 L∙min achieved through minute ventilation (V̇) of 30, 60, 105, and 150 L∙min. Each metabolic analyzer recorded data three times for each "intensity" in a randomized order, and assessments were completed on two separate days. Douglas bag-based measurements were also made once at each simulated "intensity". Measured steady-state data (average of final 1.5 min) for both V̇O (STPD) and V̇ (ATPS) were compared with simulated values to assess validity, repeated values between and within days assessed reliability, and between-device comparisons provided transferability. Including both COSMED devices at all intensities, the mean percent error for V̇O was 3.5% (range: -2.5%-8.1%) and, for V̇, was 2.0% (-0.5%-7.6%). For the VO2Master, these values averaged 0.6% (-9.3%-4.8%) and 1.1% (-6.3%-4.0%) for V̇O and V̇, respectively. Mean percent error for Douglas Bag was 1.5%, -3.7%, -3.1%, and -2.0% for 1, 2, 3, and 4 L∙min, respectively. Between-day differences (reliability) for V̇O of both COSMED devices ranged from -4.1% to 2.2% (mean 0.1%) and, for both VO2Masters, between -1.6% and 11.1% (mean 1.2%). Between-device differences (transferability) ranged from -3.5% to 0.5% (mean 1.3%) for COSMED and from -11.0% to 3.6% (mean 0.0%) for VO2Master. Mean values and ranges for V̇ were similar. When used appropriately in laboratory settings, the COSMED Quark and VO2Master Pro systems provide gas exchange and ventilatory data within an acceptable range for metabolic testing equipment that are both reliable and transferable between optimally performing devices.
我们评估了两种常用代谢测量系统(COSMED Quark和VO2Master Pro)的气体交换和通气变量的有效性、可靠性及可转移性。每个系统的两台相同设备分别独立连接到一台代谢模拟器(VacuMed),通过30、60、105和150 L∙min的分钟通气量(V̇)实现1、2、3和4 L∙min的模拟摄氧量(V̇O),并记录2分钟的稳态数据。每个代谢分析仪针对每个“强度”以随机顺序记录三次数据,且评估在两个不同日期完成。在每个模拟“强度”下也进行一次基于道格拉斯袋的测量。将V̇O(标准温度和压力干燥气体体积)和V̇(标准温度、压力和饱和水蒸气体积)的测量稳态数据(最后1.5分钟的平均值)与模拟值进行比较以评估有效性,评估不同日期之间及同一天内重复值的可靠性,设备间比较则评估可转移性。在所有强度下纳入两台COSMED设备,V̇O的平均百分比误差为3.5%(范围:-2.5%-8.1%),V̇的平均百分比误差为2.0%(-0.5%-7.6%)。对于VO2Master,V̇O和V̇的这些值分别平均为0.6%(-9.3%-4.8%)和1.1%(-6.3%-4.0%)。道格拉斯袋在1、2、3和4 L∙min时的平均百分比误差分别为1.5%、-3.7%、-3.1%和-2.0%。两台COSMED设备V̇O的不同日期间差异(可靠性)范围为-4.1%至2.2%(平均0.1%),两台VO2Master的差异范围为-1.6%至11.1%(平均1.2%)。COSMED设备间差异(可转移性)范围为-3.5%至0.5%(平均1.3%),VO2Master的差异范围为-11.0%至3.6%(平均0.0%)。V̇的平均值和范围相似。在实验室环境中适当使用时,COSMED Quark和VO2Master Pro系统可提供代谢测试设备可接受范围内的气体交换和通气数据,这些数据在性能最佳的设备之间既可靠又具有可转移性。