Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26660758›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

Sprint Running Performance Monitoring: Methodological and Practical Considerations.

Thomas Haugen, Martin Buchheit

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

147 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 342 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Eight-Week Vitamin DNutrients · 2026
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

87 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Thomas HaugenNorwegian Olympic Federation, Sognsveien 228, 0840, Oslo, Norway. thomas.haugen@olympiatoppen.no.
Martin BuchheitSport Science Department, Myorobie Association, Montvalezan, France.
iXBlue (France) · FRNorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this review is to investigate methodological concerns associated with sprint performance monitoring, more specifically the influence and magnitude of varying external conditions, technology and monitoring methodologies not directly related to human physiology. The combination of different starting procedures and triggering devices can cause up to very large time differences, which may be many times greater than performance changes caused by years of conditioning. Wind, altitude, temperature, barometric pressure and humidity can all combine to yield moderate time differences over short sprints. Sprint performance can also be affected by the athlete's clothing, principally by its weight rather than its aerodynamic properties. On level surfaces, the track compliance must change dramatically before performance changes larger than typical variation can be detected. An optimal shoe bending stiffness can enhance performance by a small margin. Fully automatic timing systems, dual-beamed photocells, laser guns and high-speed video are the most accurate tools for sprint performance monitoring. Manual timing and single-beamed photocells should be avoided over short sprint distances (10-20 m) because of large absolute errors. The validity of today's global positioning systems (GPS) technology is satisfactory for long distances (>30 m) and maximal velocity in team sports, but multiple observations are still needed as reliability is questionable. Based on different approaches used to estimate the smallest worthwhile performance change and the typical error of sprint measures, we have provided an assessment of the usefulness of speed evaluation from 5 to 40 m. Finally, we provide statistical guidelines to accurately assess changes in individual performance; i.e. considering both the smallest worthwhile change in performance and the typical error of measurement, which can be reduced while repeating the number of trials.

Indexed as

Time and Motion StudiesAthletic PerformanceClothingEnvironmentEquipment DesignFootballGeographic Information SystemsHumansRunningShoes

Identifiers

PMID26660758
OpenAlexW2215799294

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.