[Use of simple mathematical models in sports medicine performance diagnosis]

Bicycle spiroergometry: comparison of standardized examination protocols for adolescents: is it necessary to define own standard values for each protocol?

Purpose

To compare performance data of adolescents collected with five different bicycle spiroergometry protocols and to assess the necessity for establishing standard values for each protocol.

Methods

One-hundred-twenty adolescents completed two bicycle spiroergometries within 14 days. One of the two tests was performed based on our institutional weight-adapted protocol (P0). The other test was performed based on one out of four exercise protocols widely used for children and adolescents (P1, 2, 3 or 4) with 30 persons each. The two tests were performed in a random order. Routine parameters of cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) such as VO₂peak, maximum power, O₂ pulse, OUES, VE/VCO₂ slope as well as ventilatory and lactate thresholds were investigated. Agreement between protocols was evaluated by Bland–Altman analysis, coefficients of variation (CV) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

None of the CPET parameters were significantly different between P0 and P1, 2, 3 or 4. For most of the parameters, low biases between P0 and P1–P4 were found and 95% confidence intervalls were narrow. CV and ICC values largely corresponded to well-defined analytical goals (CV < 10% and ICC > 0.9). Only maximal power (Pmax) showed differences in size and drift of the bias depending on the length of the step duration of the protocols.

Conclusion

Comparability between examination protocols has been shown for CPET parameters independent on step duration. Protocol-dependent standard values do not appear to be necessary. Only Pmax is dependent on the step duration, but in most cases, this has no significant influence on the fitness assessment.