Cited by 240Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingBiomedical and Chemical Research

Accuracy and reliability of the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 and MedGraphics VO2000 metabolic systems

Crouter, Scott E., Antczak, Amanda, Hudak, Jonathan R., DellaValle, Diane M., Haas, Jere D.·2006·European Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

This study examined the accuracy and reliability of the MedGraphics VO2000 (VO2000) portable metabolic system and the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 (TrueOne 2400) metabolic cart against the criterion Douglas bag (DB) method. Ten healthy males (age 20 +/- 1.7 years) had their gas exchange variables measured at rest and during cycling at 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 W. Each stage was 10-12 min. For half of the stage gas exchange was measured with the DB and TrueOne 2400 simultaneously and for the other half of the stage gas exchange was measured with the VO2000. The testing was performed on two separate days and the order in which the equipment was used in each stage was randomized. Reliability between days for V (E) (CV 7.3-8.8%) was similar among devices, however, for VO2, and VCO2 the VO2000 (CV 14.2-15.8%) was less reliable compared to the DB (CV 5.3-6.0%) and TrueOne 2400 (CV 4.7-5.7%). The TrueOne 2400 was not significantly different from the DB at rest or any work rate for V (E), VO2, or VCO2 (P > or = 0.05). The VO2000 was significantly different from the DB for V (E) at 50-100 W, VO2 at rest and 100-250 W, and VCO2 at rest and 200-250 W (all, P < 0.05). The TrueOne 2400 provides accurate and reliable results for the measurement of gas exchange variables. The VO2000 portable metabolic system was less reliable for measuring VO2 and VCO2 and generally overestimates VO2 at most cycling work rates. Further research is needed to confirm the results found with the VO2000.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00421-006-0255-0

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crouter, S. E., Antczak, A., Hudak, J. R., DellaValle, D. M., & Haas, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Ithaca College (US)
Corresponding author
Crouter, Scott E.
Venue
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2006-08-03
Volume
98
Issue
2
Pages
139-151
ISSN
  • 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-6319
  • 1439-6327
OpenAlex
W2123575852
Cited by
240
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Collections - Ithaca College Library (Ithaca College) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Biomedical and Chemical Research
Keywords
gas exchange measurement, oxygen consumption, CO2 emissions, ventilatory equivalents, measurement accuracy, measurement reliability, Douglas bag, cycling exercise, device comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Equipment Design, Exercise Test, Humans, Male, Oxygen, Oxygen Consumption, Pulmonary Gas Exchange, Respiratory Function Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Equipment Failure Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review