REF-030 · Bonaventura et al., 2015 · Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, · PubMed · Free full text
Six hand-held lactate analysers against a laboratory criterion: repeatability is good (generally <0.5 mM between ~1 and 10 mM), but every portable unit under-reads, most at 15-23 mM
For athlete testing the Edge and Lactate Pro2 were preferred
Protocol
Two devices of each brand (Lactate Pro, Lactate Pro2, Lactate Scout+, Xpress, Edge) and the point-of-care i-STAT measured 22 × 6 mL blood samples from five subjects at rest and during exercise (lactate ~1-23 mM), each ~6 times, against a Radiometer ABL90. Reliability = within-sample SD of the replicates; accuracy = bias vs the ABL90; total error = √(wsSD² + bias²).
Key Findings
Reliability of the five portable analysers was generally <0.5 mM for concentrations of ~1-10 mM; analytical error within a brand was much smaller than the biological variation in blood lactate.
All portable analysers tended to under-read (negative bias), most at the highest concentrations (~15-23 mM); bias, not scatter, was the main source of total error.
The Edge and Xpress had low total error (~0-2 mM) at the concentrations reported; for clinical use (<15 mM) the Edge and Xpress fit, for athlete testing where peak lactate matters the Edge and Lactate Pro2 were preferred.
Practical Application
Six hand-held analysers compared with a laboratory criterion (Bonaventura 2015): repeatability is generally within 0.5 mM between ~1 and 10 mM, but every portable unit reads LOW, most at 15-23 mM — so a peak lactate from a hand-held device is an underestimate, and a training intensity set from it will tend to be too high.
Keep one analyser brand for all of an athlete's tests: the error inside a brand is small, the offset between brands and the criterion is not.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: keep one strip lot per test block and calibrate as the manufacturer specifies.
Limitations
Five subjects supplied the samples; the unit of analysis is the blood sample (n=22), not the athlete.
Devices and strip generations change; results apply to the models tested in 2015.
Full text not read; everything above is from the abstract.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
test validation study
Content correction 2026-09-27
The entry said this source "does NOT exist". It does: Bonaventura et al. 2015, J Sports Sci Med 14(1):203-214, PMID 25729309 (the journal issues no DOIs, which is why DOI searches missed it). Identified by a title/author search and attached with the owner's explicit OK (2026-09-27); the PubMed record matches author, year, journal and design.
Refilled from the abstract: five portable analysers + i-STAT, 22 samples, lactate ~1-23 mM, reliability generally <0.5 mM at ~1-10 mM, negative bias for all portable units (largest at 15-23 mM), Edge/Lactate Pro2 preferred for athlete testing. The earlier "ICC >0.95" is not in the abstract and is not restored.
Level C+ -> B (device validation study).