Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29692739›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2018

Tests for the Assessment of Sport-Specific Performance in Olympic Combat Sports: A Systematic Review With Practical Recommendations.

Helmi Chaabene, Yassine Negra, Raja Bouguezzi, Laura Capranica, Emerson Franchini, Olaf Prieske, Hamdi Hbacha, Urs Granacher

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Relative Age Effect in Olympic Karate: Evidence from Tokyo 2020.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Helmi ChaabeneDivision of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Yassine NegraResearch Unit (UR17JS01) "Sport Performance & Health" Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia.
Raja BouguezziResearch Unit (UR17JS01) "Sport Performance & Health" Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia.
Laura CapranicaDepartment of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.
Emerson FranchiniMartial Arts and Combat Sports Research Group, School of Physical Education and Sport, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Olaf PrieskeDivision of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Hamdi HbachaLaboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, UMR Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 8242, Paris, France.
Urs GranacherDivision of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The regular monitoring of physical fitness and sport-specific performance is important in elite sports to increase the likelihood of success in competition. This study aimed to systematically review and to critically appraise the methodological quality, validation data, and feasibility of the sport-specific performance assessment in Olympic combat sports like amateur boxing, fencing, judo, karate, taekwondo, and wrestling. A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Google-Scholar, and Science-Direct up to October 2017. Studies in combat sports were included that reported validation data (e.g., reliability, validity, sensitivity) of sport-specific tests. Overall, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The majority of studies (74%) contained sample sizes <30 subjects. Nearly, 1/3 of the reviewed studies lacked a sufficient description (e.g., anthropometrics, age, expertise level) of the included participants. Seventy-two percent of studies did not sufficiently report inclusion/exclusion criteria of their participants. In 62% of the included studies, the description and/or inclusion of a familiarization session (s) was either incomplete or not existent. Sixty-percent of studies did not report any details about the stability of testing conditions. Approximately half of the studies examined reliability measures of the included sport-specific tests (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.43-1.00). Content validity was addressed in all included studies, criterion validity (only the concurrent aspect of it) in approximately half of the studies with correlation coefficients ranging from

Indexed as

martial artsmethodological qualityreliabilitysensitivityspecific assessmentvalidity

Identifiers

PMID29692739
PMCPMC5902544

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.