ArticlePloS one2016
Spatiotemporal Parameters of 100-m Sprint in Different Levels of Sprinters with Unilateral Transtibial Amputation.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate differences of the spatiotemporal parameters in a 100-m sprint among elite, sub-elite, and non-elite sprinters with a unilateral transtibial amputation. Using publicly available Internet broadcasts, we analyzed 125, 19, and 33 records from 30 elite, 12 sub-elite, and 22 non-elite sprinters, respectively. For each sprinter's run, the average velocity, step frequency, and step length were calculated using the number of steps in conjunction with the official race time. Average velocity was greatest in elite sprinters (8.71±0.32 m/s), followed by the sub-elite (8.09±0.06 m/s) and non-elite groups (7.72±0.27 m/s). Although there was a significant difference in average step frequency between the three groups, the effect size was small and the relative difference among the three groups was 3.1%. Statistical analysis also revealed that the average step length was longest in elite sprinters, followed by the sub-elite and non-elite groups. These results suggest that the differences in sprint performance between the three groups is mainly due to the average step length rather than step frequency.
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.