Safety of maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing in individuals with sickle cell disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety of maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). Maximal CPET using gas exchange analysis is the gold standard for measuring cardiopulmonary fitness in the laboratory, yet its safety in the SCD population is unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov and professional society websites for all published studies and abstracts through December 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Two reviewers independently extracted data of interest from studies that assessed safety outcomes of maximal CPET in children and adults with SCD. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess for risk of bias in studies included. RESULTS: In total, 24 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Adverse events were reported separately or as part of study results in 36 (3.8%) of 939 participants with SCD undergoing maximal CPET in studies included. Most adverse events were related to transient ischaemic changes on ECG monitoring or oxygen desaturation during testing, which did not result in arrhythmias or other complications. Only 4 (0.43%) of 939 participants experienced pain events due to maximal CPET. CONCLUSION: Maximal CPET appears to be a safe testing modality in children and adults with SCD and can be used to better understand the physiological basis of reduced exercise capacity and guide exercise prescription in this population. Some studies did not focus on reporting adverse events related to exercise testing or failed to mention safety monitoring, which contributed to risk of bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".