ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of parameters derived from a three-minute all-out test with classical benchmarks for running exercise.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The 3-min all-out test in cycling: a systematic review and meta-analysis on its reliability and validity.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Pooled it
- The Measurement and Application of Critical Speed and D' in Running: A Scoping Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Correction: Comparison of parameters derived from a three-minute all-out test with classical benchmarks for running exercise.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare four constructs from the three-minute all-out test (AO3)-end power (EP), the area above EP (WEP), maximum power (Pmax), and attained [Formula: see text]-to those derived from the classical CP model in tethered running. Seventeen male recreational runners underwent two experiments to test for reliability and agreement of AO3 parameters with those obtained from the classical CP model (Wꞌ and CP), a graded exercise test ([Formula: see text]) and a 30-second all-out test (AO30s; Pmax); all performed on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT). Significance levels were set at p<0.05. There were no significant differences between test-retest for Pmax (p = 0.51), WEP (p = 0.39), and EP (p = 0.64), showing generally close to zero bias. Further, retest ICC were high for Pmax and EP (ICC > 0.86) but moderate for WEP (ICC = 0.69). Pmax showed no difference between AO3 and AO30s (p = 0.18; CV% = 9.5%). EP and WEP disagreed largely with their classical critical power model counterparts (p = 0.05; CV%>32.7% and p = 0.23; CV%>39.7%, respectively), showing greater error than their test-retest reliability. [Formula: see text] from AO3 was not different (p = 0.13) and well related (CV% = 8.4; ICC = 0.87) to the incremental test [Formula: see text]. Under the studied conditions, the agreement of EP and WEP to CP and Wꞌ was not strong enough to assure their use interchangeably. Pmax and [Formula: see text] were closer to their criterion parameters.
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.