ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022
Comparison between 2,000 m and 3,000 m time trials to estimate the maximal aerobic speed for collegiate runners.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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 Effect of Strength Training Methods on Middle-Distance and Long-Distance Runners' Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Speed-Related Running Mechanics Using IMU in Runners.Translational sports medicine · 2026Article
- Modeling Physiological Predictors of Running Velocity for Endurance Athletes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Considered to be a lesser resource burden, 2,000 and 3,000 m time trials (TTs) have been recognized as alternatives to accurately estimate the maximal aerobic speed (MAS) derived from laboratory-graded exercise testing (GXT). Previous studies have commonly used ordinary least squares linear regression and the Bland-Altman method to compare the agreement between MAS and TT performance. The agreement analysis aimed to identify the systematic bias between the results of the two methods, rather than to identify similarities. The model II regression technique (ordinary least product regression) is increasingly favored by researchers in the field of physiology. Thus, we aimed to 1) use the ordinary least product (OLP) and bootstrap methods to determine the agreement between the average speed of 2,000 m TT (S2000) and the average speed of 3,000 m TT (S3000) and 2) determine whether S2000 or S3000 can accurately approximate the GXT-derived MAS. It is used as an alternative to estimate the MAS and prescribe training intensity. Thirty-five Beijing Sport University recreational male runners completed an MAS test in laboratory settings, followed by 2,000 and 3,000 m TTs randomly, with a 7-day interval. OLP regression was used to analyze the agreement between the GXT-derived MAS and S2000 and S3000. The bootstrap method was used to calibrate the equations. Differences between the GXT-derived MAS and S2000 and S3000 were compared using a one-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a
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.