Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2005
The reproducibility of an endurance performance test in adolescent cyclists.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a cycling pre-load time trial protocol in recreationally active humans.European journal of applied physiology · 2008Article
- Carbohydrate intake considerations for young athletes.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to measure the reproducibility of a performance test in well-trained adolescent cyclists. Eight male and one female cyclist [mean age 15.7 (0.7) y] participated in the study. Lactate threshold (LT) and peak VO2 were assessed. The performance test was repeated on three separate days and consisted of 30 min of steady state (SS) cycling at 80% of individual LT. Immediately after the SS cycling a time trial (TT) started with the cyclists having to complete a fixed amount of work as fast as possible. Reliability was assessed for the TT with the coefficient of variation (CV) as the (SD/mean)*100 for each participant, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical error (SD of the difference in mean /radical2). The group mean (SD) times for the TT were TT1 1889 (306), TT2 1857 (283) and TT3 1953 (279) s respectively. Individual CV varied from 0.25% to 10%. The ICC for TT1/2 and 2/3 were r = 0.78 and 0.93 (P<0.05). The typical errors, expressed as a CV% on the log transformed performance times, were 7.3 and 3.7% for TT1/2 and TT2/3 respectively. The largest individual CVs were observed between TT1 and TT2. The differences in CV and SD among the three TTs indicate that trial two and three were more reliable than TT1, suggesting a habituation trial is needed. It is concluded that the present performance test is reliable in adolescent cyclists with lower variation between trials 2 and 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15887022What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.