Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827346›Full record

Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2019

Reliability, Validity and Usefulness of a New Response Time Test for Agility-Based Sports: A Simple vs. Complex Motor Task.

Haris Pojskic, Jeffrey Pagaduan, Edin Uzicanin, Vlatko Separovic, Miodrag Spasic, Nikola Foretic, Damir Sekulic

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. International society of sports nutrition position stand: coffee and sports performance.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Haris PojskicDepartment of Sports Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Jeffrey PagaduanCollege of Health and Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania - Newnham, Tasmania, Australia.
Edin UzicaninFaculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Vlatko SeparovicFaculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Miodrag SpasicFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Nikola ForeticFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Damir SekulicFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of response time (RT) in sports is well known, but there is an evident lack of reliable and valid sport-specific measurement tools applicable in the evaluation of RT in trained athletes. This study aimed to identify the validity, reliability, and usefulness of four newly developed RT testing protocols among athletes from agility-saturated (AG) and non-agility-saturated (NAG) sports. Thirty-seven AG and ten NAG athletes (age: 20.9 ± 2.9; eleven females) volunteered to undergo: three randomized simple response time (SRT-1, SRT-2, and SRT-3) protocols that included a single limb movement, and one complex response time (CRT) protocol that included multi joint movements and whole body transition over a short distance (1.5 and 1.8m). Each RT test involved 3 trials with 5 randomized attempts per trial. Two sensors were placed at the left- and right-hand side for SRT-1 and SRT-2. Three sensors were positioned (left, middle, right) in SRT-3 and CRT. The intra-class-correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. Independent sample t-test, effect size (d), and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were calculated to define discriminative validity of the tests. The results showed the newly developed tests were more reliable and useful in the AG than NAG athletes (i.e., ICC between 0.68 and 0.97 versus 0.31-0.90, respectively). The RT of AG athletes was faster than that of NAG athletes in the CRT test from the left (p <0.01,

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleMotor SkillsMovementReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsTask Performance and AnalysisYoung Adultneuromotor memoryperceptionreach and touchreaction timereactive agility

Identifiers

PMID31827346
PMCPMC6873124

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.