ArticleInternational journal of exercise science
Recovery in Level 7-10 Women's USA Artistic Gymnastics.
Article in International journal of exercise science. 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.
- Comparison between gymnasts and non-gymnasts in isometric strength of the lower limbs.European journal of translational myology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed physical performance in women's artistic gymnastics following three variable recovery periods. Participants included fifteen female gymnasts (mean age = 13.5 ± 1.1) who had competed at USA Gymnastics (USAG) levels 7 - 10 within at least one year prior to the study. Each testing session consisted of a warm-up followed by four muscular endurance tests and one explosive maximal test. Assessments included pull-ups, leg lifts, handstand push-ups, vertical jump, and push-ups. After the performance assessments, the participants completed a typical practice session. The performance measures were reassessed at the beginning of each of the recovery periods of 24, 48, and 72 hours in a counterbalanced design. Performance assessments were converted into Z-scores and then averaged for a composite session Z-score. The composite session Z-scores were compared to evaluate the recovery duration. Composite Z's were significantly lower (p=0.000), after the 24 (z=-1.10) and the 48 hour (z=-0.71) recovery periods compared to baseline (z=0.00). However, there was no difference in scores (p=1.00) between the baseline and 72 hours (z=0.004) recovery. Full recovery required 72 hours under the conditions of this study.
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.