Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36687865›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Comparing rolling resistance of two treadmills and its influence on exercise testing in wheelchair athletics.

Ursina Arnet, Fabian Ammann, Claudio Perret

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ursina ArnetSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Fabian AmmannInstitute of Sports Medicine, Swiss Paraplegic Center, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Claudio PerretSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Swiss Paraplegic Center · CHSwiss Paraplegic Research · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardized laboratory exercise testing is common in sport settings and rehabilitation. The advantages of laboratory-based compared to field testing include the use of calibrated equipment and the possibility of keeping environmental conditions within narrow limits, making test results highly comparable and reproducible. However, when using different equipment (e.g., treadmills), the results might deviate and impair comparability. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties (rolling resistance, speed, inclination) of two treadmills regularly used for exercise testing in elite wheelchair athletes. During the experiment, speed and inclination of two treadmills (same model and producer, different manufacturing year and belt material) were verified. Standardized drag tests were performed to assess rolling resistance. Power output conducted by the athlete during later exercise tests was calculated based on the results. Speed and inclination deviated only slightly from the values indicated by the producer. Rolling resistance caused by different belt material was mainly accountable for the differences in power output between the treadmills. In general, athletes had to deliver 10% more power output on one of the treadmills compared to the other. Concluding from these results: if different treadmills are used for testing, a proper validation is recommended to avoid misleading interpretations of test results.

Indexed as

athletesequipmentreproducibilitytestingwheelchair

Identifiers

PMID36687865
PMCPMC9858561
OpenAlexW4313595334

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.