ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Determination of Critical Power Using Different Possible Approaches among Endurance Athletes: A Review.
Review 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, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Field-based tests for determining critical speed among runners and its practical application: a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Individual training prescribed by heart rate variability, heart rate and well-being scores in experienced cyclists.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of body composition, cardiorespiratory, and neuromuscular adaptations induced by three different high intensity training protocols.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- A monocarboxylate transporter-dependent mechanism confers resistance to exercise-induced fatigue in a high-altitude hypoxic environment.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
Critical power represents an important parameter of aerobic function and is the highest average effort that can be sustained for a period of time without fatigue. Critical power is determined mainly in the laboratory. Many different approaches have been applied in testing methods, and it is a difficult task to determine which testing protocol it the most suitable. This review aims to evaluate all possible tests on bicycle ergometers or bicycles used to estimate critical power and to compare them. A literature search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) published from 2012 to 2022 and followed the PRISMA guidelines to process the review. Twenty-one articles met the eligibility criteria: records with trained or experienced endurance athletes (adults > 18), bicycle ergometer, a description of the testing protocol, and comparison of the tests. We found that the most widely used tests were the 3-min all-out tests set in a linear mode and the traditional protocol time to exhaustion. Some other alternatives could have been used but were not as regular. To summarize, the testing methods offered two main approaches in the laboratory (time to exhaustion test andthe 3-min all-out test with different protocols) and approach in the field, which is not yet completely standardized.
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.