Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 May;88(5):610-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.013.

Exercise testing and training in a cancer rehabilitation program: the advantage of the steep ramp test

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Exercise testing and training in a cancer rehabilitation program: the advantage of the steep ramp test

Ingrid C De Backer et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 May.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the short maximal exercise capacity test (steep ramp test) with the submaximal test to determine the most appropriate exercise test in cancer rehabilitation.

Design: A prospective study in which a submaximal test, a maximal short exercise capacity test (steep ramp test), and a maximal oxygen consumption test (Vo(2)max test) were performed before and after an 18-week training program. Vo(2)max testing, the criterion standard for the measurement of physical capacity, was compared with the submaximal test and the steep ramp test.

Setting: Community hospital and physiotherapy.

Participants: Thirty-seven cancer survivors (10 men, 27 women) treated with chemotherapy. The subjects' mean age +/- standard deviation (SD) was 48+/-11 years.

Intervention: An 18-week training program including strength training, interval aerobic training, and home-based activities (endurance).

Main outcome measures: Estimated Vo(2)max (submaximal test) and maximal workload (steep ramp test) were assessed during the exercise tests and compared with the results of the Vo(2)max test.

Results: A paired t test showed a significant improvement in Vo(2)max (+13%, P<.001) and maximal workload (+19%, P<.001) after the training program. This improvement was confirmed in the steep ramp test (maximal workload, +13%, P<.001) but not in the submaximal test (estimated Vo(2)max, +4%, P=.192). Pearson correlation quantified only a moderate correlation between the Vo(2)max test and the submaximal test and a high correlation between the Vo(2)max test and the steep ramp test. Intraclass correlation determined the test-retest reliability of the submaximal test (.873) and the steep ramp test (.996). A linear regression model (Vo(2)max, 6.7; steep ramp Wmax, +356.7) was estimated to predict Vo(2)max from the steep ramp test outcome, implying a prediction margin of +/-2 SDs (616 mL/min).

Conclusions: The submaximal test proved to be invalid, whereas the steep ramp test seems to be a practicable, reliable, and valid test for the assessment of the training dose. The steep ramp test can be regularly repeated during the training program, providing information needed to readjust the training dose according to the progress made.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources