Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29299317›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2017

A systematic review investigating measurement properties of physiological tests in rugby.

Matthew Chiwaridzo, Sander Oorschot, Jermaine M Dambi, Gillian D Ferguson, Emmanuel Bonney, Tapfuma Mudawarima, Cathrine Tadyanemhandu, Bouwien C M Smits-Engelsman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Absolute and relative reliability ofSouth African journal of sports medicine · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Matthew ChiwaridzoDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Sander OorschotDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Univeristy of Maastricht, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Jermaine M DambiDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Gillian D FergusonDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Emmanuel BonneyDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Tapfuma MudawarimaDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cathrine TadyanemhanduRehabilitation Department, University of Zimbabwe, College of Health Sciences, P.O Box A178, Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Bouwien C M Smits-EngelsmanDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZWMaastricht University · NLUniversity of Health and Allied Sciences · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review was conducted with the first objective aimed at providing an overview of the physiological characteristics commonly evaluated in rugby and the corresponding tests used to measure each construct. Secondly, the measurement properties of all identified tests per physiological construct were evaluated with the ultimate purpose of identifying tests with strongest level of evidence per construct.

methodsThe review was conducted in two stages. In all stages, electronic databases of EBSCOhost, Medline and Scopus were searched for full-text articles. Stage 1 included studies examining physiological characteristics in rugby. Stage 2 included studies evaluating measurement properties of all tests identified in Stage 1 either in rugby or related sports such as Australian Rules football and Soccer. Two independent reviewers screened relevant articles from titles and abstracts for both stages.

resultsSeventy studies met the inclusion criteria for Stage 1. The studies described 63 tests assessing speed (8), agility/change of direction speed (7), upper-body muscular endurance (8), upper-body muscular power (6), upper-body muscular strength (5), anaerobic endurance (4), maximal aerobic power (4), lower-body muscular power (3), prolonged high-intensity intermittent running ability/endurance (5), lower-body muscular strength (5), repeated high-intensity exercise performance (3), repeated-sprint ability (2), repeated-effort ability (1), maximal aerobic speed (1) and abdominal endurance (1). Stage 2 identified 20 studies describing measurement properties of 21 different tests. Only moderate evidence was found for the reliability of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness. There was limited evidence found for the reliability and/or validity of 5 m, 10 m, 20 m speed tests, 505 test, modified 505 test, L run test, Sergeant Jump test and bench press repetitions-to-fatigue tests. There was no information from high-quality studies on the measurement properties of all the other tests identified in stage 1.

conclusionA number of physiological characteristics are evaluated in rugby. Each physiological construct has multiple tests for measurement. However, there is paucity of information on measurement properties from high-quality studies for the tests. This raises questions about the usefulness and applicability of these tests in rugby and creates a need for high-quality future studies evaluating measurement properties of these physiological tests. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO CRD 42015029747.

Indexed as

Physiological characteristicsReliabilityResponsivenessRugbySystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID29299317
PMCPMC5745687
OpenAlexW2780875531

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.