ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Sports Performance Tests for Amputee Football Players: A Scoping Review.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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.
- Associations Between Physiological Characteristics and Physical Performance in Amputee Soccer Players: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Periodic health evaluation in Para athletes: a position statement based on expert consensus.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Observational
- Editorial: New Training Strategies and Evaluation Methods for Improving Health and Physical Performance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis scoping review aims to identify sports performance tests for amputee football players and to critically analyze the methodological quality, validation data, reliability, and standardization of sport-specific tests to indicate the best-fitting tests.
methodsElectronic database searches were conducted between January 2019 and October 2021. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative assessment of each study was conducted by STROBE checklist.
resultsTwenty-nine sports performance tests were identified. No sports performance test fully met all three criteria associated with the qualitative assessment of tests. The critical appraisal of the articles demonstrates a gap in study design, settings, and main results description. Some inconsistencies were found in the methodological descriptions of tests assessing the same motor skill. A STROBE score of 13 points was considered a satisfactory score for the article (it was obtained by 8 of the 12 studies). The weakest point of the analyzed studies was the description of how the test group size was accessed and later obtained.
conclusionsNo test was found that was simultaneously presented as valid, reliable, and standardized. The authors can recommend the use of the two-sports performance tests that are the closest to ideal: the L test and the YYIRT1.
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.