Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805242›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Determination of Critical Power Using Different Possible Approaches among Endurance Athletes: A Review.

Lucie Lipková, Michal Kumstát, Ivan Struhár

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lucie LipkováDepartment of Health Promotion, Faculty of Sports Studies, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Michal KumstátDepartment of Health Promotion, Faculty of Sports Studies, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Ivan StruhárDepartment of Health Promotion, Faculty of Sports Studies, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AthletesPhysical EnduranceAdultExercise TestFatigueHumanscritical workendurance athletesmethodsperformance analysis

Identifiers

PMID35805242
PMCPMC9265641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.