ArticlePloS one2023
Temporal demands of elite fencing.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing embedded virtual reality combat to traditional warm-ups on fencing performance and fatigue: Protocol for a randomized crossover trial.JSAMS plus · 2026Article
- Olympic fencing medallists are increasingly clustering around an age that has hardly changed (1896-2024).Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Impact of lower-body strength and power on lunge velocity in elite fencers: a comparative weapon analysis.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Match Performance Analysis of Women's Épée in the 2017-2019 World Fencing Championships.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Article
- Assessing Motor Performance and Ankle Mobility in Pre-Adolescent Male Fencers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mental fatigue in Olympic combat sports: the unseen ongoing battle.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Understanding of mental fatigue in elite fencing sports: perspectives from Chinese national level fencers.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Fencing injuries in French elite fencers: a retrospective analysis from 2016 to 2023.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
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
There is no published study that analyses the temporal demands of fencing, in its six Olympic modalities in the same high-level competition. The only existing publications date back decades, with already obsolete regulations, or focus on a specific modality. The aim of this study is to carry out a chronometric analysis of elite fencing at the 2014 Fencing World Championships to determine the existence of differences between its weapons (épée, foil and sabre) and between genders. A total of 96 elite fencers (48 women) of 24 different nationalities were analysed in the final rounds (direct elimination). We undertook observational methodology based on an open and systematic process with ideographic, point and multi-dimensional design. We analysed the work time, rest time, total time, number of stops and work-to-rest ratio. The Lince software was used to record and analyse video data. The coding and recording process of the 83 fights analysed generated a matrix of 5900 records. The quality of the data was verified by checking the validity of the observation instrument and the intraobserver reliability. The mean work time (between Allez and Halte) was 17.9 ± 3.1 s for épée, 5.8 ± 2.5 s for foil and 1 .7 ± 0.4 s for sabre. The fight work-to-rest ratios recorded were 1:0.9, 1:2.6 and 1:9.2 for épée, foil and sabre respectively. The results showed significant differences (p < .05) in the work and rest times between the three fencing weapons. However, there were no differences between fencers of the same weapon according to gender.
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.