ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2020
An evaluation of bicycle-specific agility and reaction times in mountain bikers and road cyclists.
Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- A scoping review of bicycling interventions' impacts on psychological, social, affective, and cognitive well-being.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- The ecological validity of traditional standing and novel bicycle balance and agility tests for predicting performance in mountain bikers.Sports medicine and health science · 2022Article
- Acute Effects of Sprint Interval Training and Chronic Effects of Polarized Training (Sprint Interval Training, High Intensity Interval Training, and Endurance Training) on Choice Reaction Time in Mountain Bike Cyclists.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cycling is a popular recreational and competitive sport with many health benefits but also significant risks, with 85% of recreational cyclists reporting an injury each season. The most common mechanism of injury is through a loss of control of the bicycle, and collisions with other objects. Reaction time and agility in cyclists may contribute to the ability to control a bicycle. Objectives: To evaluate bicycle-specific agility and reaction time in cyclists. Methods: The study was a cross-sectional observational study. Thirty-five cyclists (27 males, eight females) participated in this study. Participants attended a single testing session where they completed a bicycle-specific agility test, and online simple and choice reaction time testing while cycling at three different exercise intensities. Results: There was a significant difference in agility between males and females (p=0.01). There was also a significant difference in choice reaction time between cycling at 'light' and 'very hard' intensities (p=0.004), and a significant positive relationship between agility and simple reaction time at a 'hard' intensity. Discussion: Choice reaction time improved at 'very hard' cycling intensity, supporting the theory that increased exercise intensity improves cognitive arousal. This reaction time may be essential as a means to avoid collisions and falls from bicycles. Bicycle-specific agility appears to be related to simple reaction time, but there are no existing validated bicycle-specific agility tests available. The value of the tests undertaken by the authors needs to be assessed further. Conclusion: Choice reaction time was significantly decreased in high intensity cycling compared to cycling at low intensities. Further prospective studies are needed to establish links between reaction times and bicycle-specific agility.
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.