Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26914267›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

Advances in Sprint Acceleration Profiling for Field-Based Team-Sport Athletes: Utility, Reliability, Validity and Limitations.

Kim D Simperingham, John B Cronin, Angus Ross

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Force-velocity profile in sprinting: sex effect.European journal of applied physiology · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Kim D SimperinghamSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at AUT Millennium, Auckland University of Technology, 17 Antares Place, Level 2, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand. ksimperingham@gmail.com.
John B CroninSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at AUT Millennium, Auckland University of Technology, 17 Antares Place, Level 2, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand.
Angus RossSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at AUT Millennium, Auckland University of Technology, 17 Antares Place, Level 2, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced testing technologies enable insight into the kinematic and kinetic determinants of sprint acceleration performance, which is particularly important for field-based team-sport athletes. Establishing the reliability and validity of the data, particularly from the acceleration phase, is important for determining the utility of the respective technologies.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to explain the utility, reliability, validity and limitations of (1) radar and laser technology, and (2) non-motorised treadmill (NMT) and torque treadmill (TT) technology for providing kinematic and kinetic measures of sprint acceleration performance. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE (EBSCO), PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was conducted using search terms that included radar, laser, non-motorised treadmill, torque treadmill, sprint, acceleration, kinetic, kinematic, force, and power.

methodsStudies examining the kinematics or kinetics of short (≤10 s), maximal-effort sprint acceleration in adults or children, which included an assessment of reliability or validity of the advanced technologies of interest, were included in this systematic review. Absolute reliability, relative reliability and validity data were extracted from the selected articles and tabulated. The level of acceptance of reliability was a coefficient of variation (CV) ≤10 % and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or correlation coefficient (r) ≥0.70.

resultsA total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. Generally acceptable validity (r = 0.87-0.99; absolute bias 3-7 %), intraday reliability (CV ≤9.5 %; ICC/r ≥0.84) and interday reliability (ICC ≥0.72) were reported for data from radar and laser. However, low intraday reliability was reported for the theoretical maximum horizontal force (ICC 0.64) within adolescent athletes, and low validity was reported for velocity during the initial 5 m of a sprint acceleration (bias up to 0.41 m/s) measured with a laser device. Acceptable reliability of results from NMT and TT was only ensured when testing protocols involved sufficient familiarisation, a high sampling rate (≥200 Hz), a 'blocked' start position, and the analysis of discrete steps rather than arbitrary time periods. Sprinting times and speeds were 20-28 % slower on a TT, 28-67 % slower on an NMT, and only 9-64 % of the variance in overground measurements of speed and time (≤30 m) was explained by results from an NMT. There have been no reports to date of criterion validity of kinetic measures of sprint acceleration performance on NMT andTT, and only limited results regarding acceptable concurrent validity of radar-derived kinetic data.

conclusionsRadar, laser, NMT and TT technologies can be used to reliably measure sprint acceleration performance and to provide insight into the determinants of sprinting speed. However, further research is required to establish the validity of the kinetic measurements made with NMT and TT. Radar and laser technology may not be suitable for measuring the first few steps of a sprint acceleration.

Indexed as

AccelerationAthletesAthletic PerformanceExercise TestHumansReproducibility of ResultsRunning

Identifiers

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.