Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Is Ross treadmill method an alternative to Åstrand cycle ergometer method?
Department of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy Research Group, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0009-0002-7460-562X
Helsingborgs Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Malmö Municipality, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy Research Group, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
2017 (English)In: European Journal of Physiotherapy, ISSN 2167-9169, E-ISSN 2167-9177, Vol. 19, no 3, p. 167-172Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aims: To assess the agreement between the Ross treadmill method and the Åstrand ergometer cycle method, and the repeatability of each method.

Methodology: Twenty healthy people aged 22.5 ± 2.2 years were tested on two different days, each day with both methods with a pause of 30 min between the tests. The tests were executed in the reverse order the following test day.

Major findings: There was no statistical difference between the methods. The correlation (R) between the methods was 0.85. The mean difference (95% CI) of the methods was 0.050 (0.046–0.054) L/min and the limit of the agreement (mean difference ±2SD) was 0.81 L/min. No significant differences in test-retest were shown for either test. The mean difference for Åstrand tests was 0.12 L/min and 0.08 L/min for the Ross tests. The coefficient of repeatability was 0.88 L/min (23%) for the Åstrand test, and 0.78 L/min (20%) for the Ross test.

Conclusion: The Ross treadmill test could be used as an alternative to the Åstrand cycle ergometer test, showing good agreement and repeatability. The large variation should be considered when estimating aerobic capacity on an individual level, although either method could be used for group studies where maximal measurements are not possible.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2017. Vol. 19, no 3, p. 167-172
National Category
Clinical Laboratory Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-67144DOI: 10.1080/21679169.2017.1340515ISI: 000406051900009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85020726735OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-67144DiVA, id: diva2:1856699
Available from: 2024-05-07 Created: 2024-05-07 Last updated: 2024-09-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Garland, Stephen

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Garland, Stephen
In the same journal
European Journal of Physiotherapy
Clinical Laboratory Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf