ArticleJournal of human kinetics2015
Laboratory and Field-Based Evaluation of Short-Term Effort with Maximal Intensity in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Results of previous studies have not indicated clearly which tests should be used to assess short-term efforts of people with intellectual disabilities. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate laboratory and field-based tests of short-term effort with maximal intensity of subjects with intellectual disabilities. Twenty four people with intellectual disability, who trained soccer, participated in this study. The 30 s Wingate test and additionally an 8 s test with maximum intensity were performed on a bicycle ergometer. The fatigue index, maximal and mean power, relative maximal and relative mean power were measured. Overall, nine field-based tests were conducted: 5, 10 and 20 m sprints, a 20 m shuttle run, a seated medicine ball throw, a bent arm hang test, a standing broad jump, sit-ups and a hand grip test. The reliability of the 30 s and 8 s Wingate tests for subjects with intellectual disability was confirmed. Significant correlation was observed for mean power between the 30 s and 8 s tests on the bicycle ergometer at a moderate level (r >0.4). Moreover, significant correlations were indicated between the results of laboratory tests and field tests, such as the 20 m sprint, the 20 m shuttle run, the standing long jump and the medicine ball throw. The strongest correlation was in the medicine ball throw. The 30 s Wingate test is a reliable test assessing maximal effort in subjects with intellectual disability. The results of this research confirmed that the 8 s test on a bicycle ergometer had a moderate correlation with the 30 s Wingate test in this population, thus, this comparison needs further investigation to examine alternativeness of the 8 s to 30 s Wingate tests. The non-laboratory tests could be used to indirectly assess performance in short-term efforts with maximal intensity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.