SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists: A Systematic Mapping Review.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Track Sprint Cycling Performance in Elite-Level Male Cyclists: A Multinational Cross-Sectional Analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Article
- From Sprint to Endurance: Performance Level and Pacing Profile of International Level Para-Cyclists From C Division.European journal of sport science · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrack cyclists must develop mental, physical, tactical and technical capabilities to achieve success at an elite level. Given the importance of these components in determining performance, it is of interest to understand the volume of evidence to support implementation in practice by coaches, practitioners, and athletes.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic mapping review to describe the current scale and density of research for testing, training and optimising performance in track cycling.
methodsAll publications involving track cyclist participants were reviewed from four databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, Cochrane Library) plus additional sources. Search results returned 4019 records, of which 71 met the inclusion criteria for the review.
resultsThe review revealed most published track cycling research investigated athlete testing followed by performance optimisation, with training being the least addressed domain. Research on the physical components of track cycling has been published far more frequently than for tactical or technical components, and only one study was published on the mental components of track cycling. No true experimental research using track cyclists has been published, with 51 non-experimental and 20 quasi-experimental study designs.
conclusionsResearch in track cycling has been growing steadily. However, it is evident there is a clear preference toward understanding the physical-rather than mental, tactical, or technical-demands of track cycling. Future research should investigate how this aligns with coach, practitioner, and athlete needs for achieving track cycling success. REGISTRATION: This systematic mapping review was registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wt7eq).
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.