Trial reportScientific reports2021
Hangboard training in advanced climbers: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Based Fingerboard Training versus Conventional Fingerboard Training on Finger Flexor Endurance in Intermediate to Advanced Sports Climbers: A Randomized Controlled Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Trial
- Effects of Different Loading Programs on Finger Strength in Rock Climbers.Sports medicine - open · 2024Article
- The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention.Sports medicine - open · 2024Review
- Five weeks of dynamic finger flexor strength training on bouldering performance and climbing-specific strength tests. A randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Review
- Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biology of sport · 2023Article
- Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength,Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improving climbing performance strongly depends upon effective training methods. Hangboard training is one of the most popular approaches to increase finger and forearm strength. Training protocols are based on maximizing weight or minimizing edges. We aimed to evaluate which of these protocols was superior. We prospectively analyzed 30 intermediate to advanced climbing athletes [Union Internationale des Associations d'Alpinisme (UIAA) VI-VIII] and randomized them into three groups: control group C (Control, normal climbing training), hangboard group HE (Hang endurance, grips to hold for a determined time decreased every week), and hangboard group HW (Hang weight, + 1.25 kg weight were added each week to hold for a determined time). As endpoints, we measured the grip strength before and after an 8-week training protocol in seven different pinches. Over the 8-week training period, HW hangboard training significantly improved the climbers' grip strength compared to C [p = 0.032, effect size (ES) 0.36]. Maximizing weight improved the strength in I/II + III, I/II + III + IV and fist significantly. HW was superior compared to C in terms of grip strength improvement in three out of seven pinches and overall grip strength. The overall changes in the HE group did not differ significantly from the C group. An 8-week training protocol with increasing weights (HW) significantly improved overall grip strength more than a regular climbing training without the use of a hangboard.
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.