ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal tracking to establish percentile data and assess performance progression in swimmers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Race analysis in swimming: understanding the evolution of publications, citations and networks through a bibliometric review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To provide percentile curves for short-course swimming events, including 5 swimming strokes, 6 race distances, and both sexes, as well as to compare differences in race times between cross-sectional analysis and longitudinal tracking, a total of 31,645,621 race times of male and female swimmers were analyzed. Two percentile datasets were established from individual swimmers' annual best times and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences between cross-sectional analysis and longitudinal tracking. A software-based percentile calculator was provided to extract the exact percentile for a given race time. Longitudinal tracking reduced the number of annual best times that were included in the percentiles by 98.35% to 262,071 and showed faster mean race times (P < 0.05) compared to the cross-sectional analysis. This difference was found in the lower percentiles (1st to 20th) across all age categories (P < 0.05); however, in the upper percentiles (80th to 99th), longitudinal tracking showed faster race times during early and late junior age only (P < 0.05), after which race times approximated cross-sectional tracking. The percentile calculator provides quick and easy data access to facilitate practical application of percentiles in training or competition. Longitudinal tracking that accounts for drop-out may predict performance progression towards elite age, particularly for high-performance swimmers.
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.