Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Test Re-Test Reliability of a Modified Visual Analogue Scale Assessment Tool for Determining Incidence and Severity of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Response to Exercise Stress.

Considering the recent growth of exercise gastroenterology research focusing on exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome mechanisms, response magnitude, prevention and management strategies; the standardised assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) is warranted. The current methodological study aimed to test the reliability of a modified visual analogue scale (mVAS) for assessing GIS during exercise, in response to a variety of exertional-stress scenarios, with and without dietary intervention. Recreational endurance runners (n=31) performed one-of-three exercise protocols, which included: 2h running at 70% V̇O2max in temperate (24.7°C) ambient conditions, with fluid restriction; 2h running at 60% V̇O2max in hot (35.1°C) ambient conditions, whilst consuming chilled water immediately before and every 15min during exercise; and 2h running at 60% V̇O2max in temperate (23.0°C) ambient conditions, whilst consuming 30g/20min carbohydrate (2:1 glucose-fructose, 10% temperate w/v), followed by a 1h distance-test. GIS was monitored pre-exercise, periodically during exercise, and immediately post-exercise. After washout, participants were re-tested in mirrored conditions. No significant differences (P>0.05) were identified between test-retest using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for all GIS (specific and categorised), within each exercise protocol and combined. Strong correlations were observed for gut discomfort, total-GIS, upper-GIS, and nausea (rs =0.566 to rs =0.686; P< 0.001), but not for lower-GIS (rs =0.204; p=0.232). Cohen's magnitude of difference was minimal for all GIS (specific δ<0.14, categorised δ<0.08). The mVAS for assessing GIS during exercise appears to be a reliable tool for identifying incidence and severity of GIS in cohort populations, and is sensitive enough to detect exertional and intervention differences.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app