Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23329608›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2013

Field-based physiological testing of wheelchair athletes.

Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey, Christof A Leicht

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Back Problems: Pros and Cons of Core Strengthening Exercises as a Part of Athlete Training.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria L Goosey-TolfreySchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, The Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK. v.l.tolfrey@lboro.ac.uk
Christof A Leicht
English Institute of Sport · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The volume of literature on field-based physiological testing of wheelchair sports, such as basketball, rugby and tennis, is considerably smaller when compared with that available for individuals and team athletes in able-bodied (AB) sports. In analogy to the AB literature, it is recognized that performance in wheelchair sports not only relies on fitness, but also sport-specific skills, experience and technical proficiency. However, in contrast to AB sports, two major components contribute towards 'wheeled sports' performance, which are the athlete and the wheelchair. It is the interaction of these two that enable wheelchair propulsion and the sporting movements required within a given sport. Like any other athlete, participants of wheelchair sports are looking for efficient ways to train and/or analyse their technique and fitness to improve their performance. Consequently, laboratory and/or field-based physiological monitoring tools used at regular intervals at key time points throughout the year must be considered to help with training evaluation. The present review examines methods available in the literature to assess wheelchair sports fitness in a field-based environment, with special attention on outcome variables, validity and reliability issues, and non-physiological influences on performance. It also lays out the context of field-based testing by providing details about the Paralympic court sports and the impacts of a disability on sporting performance. Due to the limited availability of specialized equipment for testing wheelchair-dependent participants in the laboratory, the adoption of field-based testing has become the preferred option by team coaches of wheelchair athletes. An obvious advantage of field-based testing is that large groups of athletes can be tested in less time. Furthermore, athletes are tested in their natural environment (using their normal sports wheelchair set-up and floor surface), potentially making the results of such testing more relevant than laboratory testing. However, given that many tests, such as the multistage fitness test and the Yo-Yo intermittent test, have originally been developed for AB games players, the assumption that these can also be used for wheelchair athletes may be erroneous. With the array of AB aerobic and anaerobic field tests available, it is difficult to ascertain which ones may be best suited for wheelchair athletes. Therefore, new, wheelchair sport-specific tests have been proposed and validated. Careful selection of tests to enable coaches to distinguish between disability classifications, wheelchair proficiency and actual performance improvements is paramount as this will not only enhance the value of field-based testing, but also help with the development of meaningful normative data.

Indexed as

Exercise TestWheelchairsEquipment DesignHumansMotor SkillsPhysical FitnessSpinal Cord InjuriesSports

Identifiers

PMID23329608
OpenAlexW2018188504

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.