Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 718

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice

Open access
Palange, P., Ward, S. A., Carlsen, K-H., Casaburi, R., Gallagher, C. G., Gosselink, R., O'Donnell, D. E., Puente-Maestu, L., Schols, A. M., Singh, S., Whipp, B. J.·2007·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Evidence-based recommendations on the clinical use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in lung and heart disease are presented, with reference to the assessment of exercise intolerance, prognostic assessment and the evaluation of therapeutic interventions (e.g.drugs, supplemental oxygen, exercise training). A commonly used grading system for recommendations in evidence-based guidelines was applied, with the grade of recommendation ranging from A, the highest, to D, the lowest. For symptom-limited incremental exercise, CPET indices, such as peak O 2 uptake (V′O 2),V′O 2 at lactate threshold, the slope of the ventilation–CO 2 output relationship and the presence of arterial O 2 desaturation, have all been shown to have power in prognostic evaluation. In addition, for assessment of interventions, the tolerable duration of symptom-limited high-intensity constant-load exercise often provides greater sensitivity to discriminate change than the classical incremental test. Field-testing paradigms (e.g.timed and shuttle walking tests) also prove valuable. In turn, these considerations allow the resolution of practical questions that often confront the clinician, such as: 1) “When should an evaluation of exercise intolerance be sought?”; 2) “Which particular form of test should be asked for?”; and 3) “What cluster of variables should be selected when evaluating prognosis for a particular disease or the effect of a particular intervention?”

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00046906

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 718

Metadata

Authors
Palange, P., Ward, S. A., Carlsen, K.-H., Casaburi, R., Gallagher, C. G., Gosselink, R., O'Donnell, D. E., Puente-Maestu, L., Schols, A. M., Singh, S., & Whipp, B. J.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2006-12-29
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
185-209
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2100710359
Cited by
718
References
14
FWCI
63.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00046906
The paper
Palange, P., Ward, S. A., Carlsen, K.-H., Casaburi, R., Gallagher, C. G., Gosselink, R., O'Donnell, D. E., Puente-Maestu, L., Schols, A. M., Singh, S., & Whipp, B. J. (2007). Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00046906

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.