Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11286357›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2001

Reliability of power in physical performance tests.

W G Hopkins, E J Schabort, J A Hawley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 212 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
212citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

212 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

W G HopkinsDepartment of Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. will.hopkins@otago.ac.nz
E J Schabort
J A Hawley

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reliability of power in tests of physical performance affects the precision of assessment of athletes, patients, clients and study participants. In this meta-analytic review we identify the most reliable measures of power and the factors affecting reliability. Our measures of reliability were the typical (standard) error of measurement expressed as a coefficient of variation (CV) and the percent change in the mean between trials. We meta-analysed these measures for power or work from 101 studies of healthy adults. Measures and tests with the smallest CV in exercise of a given duration include field tests of sprint running (approximately 0.9%), peak power in an incremental test on a treadmill or cycle ergometer (approximately 0.9%), equivalent mean power in a constant-power test lasting 1 minute to 3 hours on a treadmill or cycle ergometer (0.9 to 2.0%), lactate-threshold power (approximately 1.5%), and jump height or distance (approximately 2.0%). The CV for mean power on isokinetic ergometers was relatively large (> 4%). CV were larger for nonathletes versus athletes (1.3 x), female versus male nonathletes (1.4 x), shorter (approximately 1-second) and longer (approximately 1-hour) versus 1-minute tests (< or = 1.6 x), and respiratory- versus ergometer-based measures of power (1.4 to 1.6 x). There was no clear-cut effect of time between trials. The importance of a practice trial was evident in studies with > 2 trials: the CV between the first 2 trials was 1.3 times the CV between subsequent trials; performance also improved by 1.2% between the first 2 trials but by only 0.2% between subsequent trials. These findings should help exercise practitioners and researchers select or design good measures and protocols for tests of physical performance.

Indexed as

ErgometryFemaleHumansMalePhysical EnduranceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID11286357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.