ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2012
Notational Analysis of European, World, and Olympic BMX Cycling Races.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of inter- and intra-rater reliability of video analysis in ski and snowboard cross.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Physiological and physical characteristics of BMX freestyle athletes: a preliminary review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Does a non-circular chainring improve performance in the bicycle motocross cycling start sprint?Journal of sports science & medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were 1) to describe the technical requirements of different tracks where classifying points are disputed for the Olympics as the European continent tracks (E), world championship competitions tracks (W), and Olympic Games track - Beijing, 2008- (O); and 2) to compare and establish differences or similarities between the three previous contexts. The sample used for this study was made of the 8 best qualifying male athletes from each competition (n = 48) during the 2007 and 2008 seasons (pre-Olympic and Olympic years). A descriptive design was used, based on systematic structured observation of the competitions filmed on video, paying attention to the different techniques used (overtaking skills, complete pedalling cycles and registered effort times). The results show that aerial techniques predominate over non aerial techniques on O and W type tracks more than on E tracks by ~20% (p < 0.001), pedaling cycles predominate in E vs. W and O by 11.85 and 24.23% respectively (p ≤ 0.05), and effort times predominate in O vs. W and E by 6.50 and 12.94% respectively (p ≤ 0.01). In conclusion, O and W tracks stand out because of the aerial component and greater technical complexity in comparison to E tracks, which has a decisive effect on the way the riders train in relation to the type of championship they aim to compete in. Key pointsEuropean tracks involve more non aerial techniques than world and Olympic tracks, respectively; more non aerial techniques are associated with more pedaling effort time.Bicycle motocross cyclists develop greater values of aerial Techniques in World and Olympic tracks compared with the European tracks and, consequently, reduced non aerial techniques.European tracks involve less technical jumps but more simple jumps. World tracks involve more technical jumps than European and Olympic tracks, but Olympic track jumps, despite being less in number, are more difficult and decisive than the rest.Olympic and World class tracks involve less physical demand than European tracks because of the greater technical requirements and less pedaling cycles.Training should be developed according to the objectives established for each athlete taking into account the type of track in which the competition is going to take place.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24149360PMC3737946What 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.