Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26733875›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2015

Comparison Between 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and Multistage Field Test on Physiological Responses in Wheelchair Basketball Players.

Thierry Weissland, Arnaud Faupin, Benoit Borel, Pierre-Marie Leprêtre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Thierry WeisslandLaboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à L'exercice et Réadaptation à L'effort, EA-3300, UFR-STAPS, Université de Picardie Jules VerneAmiens, France; Institut d'Ingénierie de la Santé, UFR de Médecine, Université de Picardie Jules VerneAmiens, France.
Arnaud FaupinLaboratoire Motricité Humaine Education Sport Santé, EA-6312, UFR-STAPS, Université de ToulonLa Garde, France; Laboratoire Motricité Humaine Education Sport Santé, EA-6312, Université Nice Sophia AntipolisNice, France.
Benoit BorelLaboratoire Handicap, Activité, Vieillissement, Autonomie, Environnement, EA-6310, Département STAPS, Université de Limoges Limoges, France.
Pierre-Marie LeprêtreLaboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à L'exercice et Réadaptation à L'effort, EA-3300, UFR-STAPS, Université de Picardie Jules Verne Amiens, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intermittent nature of wheelchair court sports suggests using a similar protocol to assess repeated shuttles and recovery abilities. This study aimed to compare performances, physiological responses and perceived rating exertion obtained from the continuous multistage field test (MFT) and the 30-15 intermittent field test (30-15IFT). Eighteen trained wheelchair basketball players (WBP) (WBP: 32.0 ± 5.7 y, IWBF classification: 2.9 ± 1.1 points) performed both incremental field tests in randomized order. Time to exhaustion, maximal rolling velocity (MRV), VO2peak and the peak values of minute ventilation (V Epeak), respiratory frequency (RF) and heart rate (HRpeak) were measured throughout both tests; peak and net blood lactate (Δ[Lact(-)] = peak-rest values) and perceived rating exertion (RPE) values at the end of each exercise. No significant difference in VO2peak, VEpeak, and RF was found between both tests. 30-15IFT was shorter (12.4 ± 2.4 vs. 14.9 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05) but induced higher values of MRV and Δ[Lact(-)] compared to MFT (14.2 ± 1.8 vs. 11.1 ± 1.9 km·h(-1) and 8.3 ± 4.2 vs. 6.9 ± 3.3 mmol·L(-1), P < 0.05). However, HRpeak and RPE values were higher during MFT than 30-15IFT(172.8 ± 14.0 vs. 166.8 ± 13.8 bpm and 15.3 ± 3.8 vs.13.8 ± 3.5, respectively, P < 0.05). The intermittent shuttles intercepted with rest period occurred during the 30-15IFT could explain a greater anaerobic solicitation. The higher HR and overall RPE values measured at the end of MFT could be explained by its longer duration and a continuous load stress compared to 30-15IFT. In conclusion, 30-15IFT has some advantages over MFT for assess in addition physical fitness and technical performance in WBP.

Indexed as

aerobic fitnessbasketballevaluationfield testwheelchair

Identifiers

PMID26733875
PMCPMC4679906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.