Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: S2-S10
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-830505
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Performance Characteristics of Gas Analysis Systems: What We Know and What We Need to Know

G. Atkinson1 , R. C. R. Davison2 , A. M. Nevill3
  • 1Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
  • 2Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, UK
  • 3School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Further Information

Publication History

Accepted after revision: July 7, 2004

Publication Date:
22 December 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

It is important that sources of variation in gas analysis measurements are identified and described in an accurate and informative manner. In this paper, we discussed the potential sources of error, which should be considered in any measurement study on gas analysis systems. We then covered how errors in various terms associated with gas laws propagate to outcome measurements of gas exchange to help quantify the relative importance of sources of error. Finally, we performed a literature survey to explore the statistical methods researchers have employed to arrive at conclusions on the performance characteristics of gas analysis methods. We found examples of excellent practice in the literature, but there were also gaps in the knowledge of error in gas analysis systems. Consequently, we supplied guidelines for future method comparison studies. These guidelines included (i) a sample size of at least 40 participants and the citation of confidence intervals, (ii) a description of the relationships between systematic and random errors and the size of measured value, (iii) the parallel examination of test-retest error within a method comparison study, and (iv) an a priori-made judgement on how much systematic and random error between methods is acceptable for practical applications. We stressed that this judgement should be based on expert-agreed position statements about acceptable error, which unfortunately have yet to be formulated for gas analysis systems.

Key words

Calibration - error sources - systematic and random errors - uniform and proportional errors - precision of estimate

References

  • 1 Atkinson G. What is this thing called measurement error?. Reilly T, Marfell-Jones M Kinanthropometry VIII: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK). London; Taylor and Francis 2003: 3-14
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Atkinson G, Nevill A M. Statistical methods in assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.  Sports Med. 1998;  26 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Atkinson G, Nevill A M. Heart rate and performance parameters in cyclists (letter to the editor).  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;  33 852
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Atkinson G, Nevill A M. Selected issues in the design and analysis of sport performance research.  J Sports Sci. 2001;  19 811-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bassett Jr D R, Howley E T, Thompson D L, King G A, Strath S J, McLaughlin J E, Parr B B. Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system.  J Appl Physiol. 2001;  91 218-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bigard A X, Guezennec C Y. Evaluation of the Cosmed K2 telemetry system during exercise at moderate altitude.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;  27 1333-1338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bland J M, Altman D G. Applying the right statistics: analysis of measurement studies.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  22 85-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bland J M, Altman D G. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against the standard method is misleading.  Lancet. 1995;  346 1085-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bland J M, Altman D G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.  Stat Meth Med Res. 1999;  8 135-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;  1 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Carter J, Jeukendrup A E. Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;  86 435-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Crandall C G, Taylor S L, Raven P B. Evaluation of the Cosmed K2 portable telemetric oxygen uptake analyser.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;  26 108-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Davis J A. Direct determination of aerobic power. Maud PJ, Foster C Physiological Assessment of Human Fitness. Champaign; Human Kinetics 1995: 9-17
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Eisenmann J C, Brisko N, Shadrick D, Welsh S. Comparative analysis of the Cosmed Quark b2 and K4b2 gas analysis systems during submaximal exercise.  J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2003;  43 150-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Elia M, Mc Donald T, Crisp A. Errors in measurement of CO2 with the use of drying agents.  Clin Chim Acta. 1986;  158 237-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Green I D, Nesarajah M S. Water-vapor pressure of end-tidal air of normals and chronic bronchitics.  J Appl Physiol. 1968;  24 229-232
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hausswirth C, Bigard A X, LeChevalier J M. The Cosmed K4 telemetry system as an accurate device for oxygen uptake measurements during exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 1997;  18 449-453
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 ISO .Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results. Use in Practice of Accuracy Values. Geneva; International Standards Publication 1994: ISO 5725 (part 6)
    Google Scholar
  • 19 James D VB, Doust J H. Reliability of pulmonary V·O2 measurement and implications for determination of recovery from running.  J Sports Sci. 1997;  15 30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jensen K, Johansen L. Reproducibility and validity of physiological parameters measured in cyclists riding on racing bikes placed on a stationary magnetic brake.  Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;  8 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Katch V L, Sady S S, Freedson P. Biological variability in maximal aerobic power.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;  14 21-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kawakami Y, Nozaki D, Matsuo A, Fukunaga T. Reliability of measurement of oxygen uptake by a portable telemetric system.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1992;  65 409-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 King G A, McLaughlin J E, Howley E T, Bassett D R, Ainsworth B E. Validation of aerosport KB1-C portable metabolic system.  Int J Sports Med. 1999;  20 304-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lamarra N, Whipp B. Measurement of pulmonary gas exchange. Maud PJ, Foster C Physiological Assessment of Human Fitness. Champaign; Human Kinetics 1995: 19-35
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Lothian F, Farrally M R, Mahoney C. Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 to measure oxygen uptake.  Can J Appl Physiol. 1993;  18 197-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lucia A, Fleck S J, Gotshall R W, Kearney J T. Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 instrument.  Int J Sports Med. 1993;  14 380-386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ludbrook J. Comparing methods of measurement.  Clin Exp Pharm Physiol. 1997;  24 193-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Macfarlane D J. Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review.  Sports Med. 2001;  31 841-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McLaughlin J E, King G A, Howley E T, Bassett D R, Ainsworth B E. Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 280-284
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Meyer T, Georg T, Becker C, Kindermann W. Reliability of gas exchange measurements from two different spiroergometry systems.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 593-597
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Morrow J R, Jackson A W. How “significant” is your reliability?.  Res Quart Exerc Sport. 1993;  64 352-355
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Myers J, Walsh M, Sullivan M, Froelicher V. Effect of sampling on variability and plateau in oxygen uptake.  J Appl Physiol. 1990;  68 404-410
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nevill A M, Atkinson G. Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science.  Br J Sports Med. 1997;  31 314-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Novitsky S, Segal K R, Chatr-Aryamontri B, Guvakov D, Katch V L. Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter: the AeroSport TEEM 100.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1995;  70 462-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Peel C, Utsey C. Oxygen-consumption using the K2 telemetry system and a metabolic cart.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;  25 396-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rietjens G JWM, Kuipers H, Kester A DM, Keizer H A. Validation of a computerised metabolic measurement system (Oxycon-Pro) during low and high intensity exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 291-294
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Unnithan V B, Wilson J, Buchanan D, Timmons J A, Paton J Y. Validation of the sensormedics (S2900 Z) metabolic cart for pediatric exercise testing.  Can J Appl Physiol. 1994;  19 472-479
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Whipp B J, Ward S A, Lamarra N, Davis J A, Wasserman K. Parameters of ventilatory and gas exchange dynamics during exercise.  J Appl Physiol. 1982;  52 1506-1513
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wideman L, Stoudemire N M, Pass K A, McGinnes C L, Gaesser G A, Weltman A. Assessment of the Aerosport TEEM 100 portable metabolic system.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;  28 509-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Withers R, Gore C, Gass G, Hahn A. Determination of maximal oxygen consumption (V·O2max) or maximal aerobic power. Gore C Australia Sports Commission: Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. Champaign; Human Kinetics 2000: 114-127
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Yamaya Y, Bogaard H J, Wagner P D, Niizeki K, Hopkins S R. Validity of pulse oximetry during maximal exercise in normoxia, hypoxia and hyperoxia.  J Appl Physiol. 2002;  92 162-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Yeh M P, Adams T D, Gardner R M, Yanowitz F G. Turbine flowmeter vs. Fleish pneumotachometer: a comparative study for exercise testing.  J Appl Physiol. 1987;  63 1289-1295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. G. Atkinson

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University

L3 3TU Liverpool

United Kingdom

Phone: + 44(0)1509228444

Email: G.Atkinson@livjm.ac.uk

      >