ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2023
Test-Retest Reliability of a 4-Minute All-Out Critical Force Test in Rock Climbers.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2023. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reliability of finger strength assessment methods in climbing: a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Raclet: the ramp above critical level endurance test to evaluate critical force in isometric task.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Measuring critical force in sport climbers: a validation study of the 4 min all-out test on finger flexors.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Optimizing active recovery strategies for finger flexor fatigue.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of a 4-minute all-out critical force test in well-trained rock climbers. Thirteen rock climbers (n=4 females) completed a familiarization session and two all-out critical force tests on different days. During each trial, participants completed 24 repetitions of 7s right-handed, maximal effort hangs from a 20mm edge interspersed with 3 s rest. The end-test force (EF; i.e., critical force), impulse above EF (IEF), and peak force achieved during the test were analyzed with paired t-tests to determine differences between trials. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to quantify the relative and absolute reliability of the measure, respectively. The level of significance for this study was set at p<0.05. There were no significant differences between trials for any of the reported variables (P≥0.455). For EF, IEF, and peak force, ICC was 0.848, 0.820, and 0.938, respectively; and CV was 21.0%, 13.2%, and 5.6%, respectively. Bland-Altman analyses showed a mean relative bias of -2.3%, -2.8%, and -1.3%, with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of -62.6% to 58.1%, -40.5% to 30.9%, and -17.2% to 14.6% for EF, IEF, and peak force, respectively, however linear regression revealed a significant proportional bias for EF (p = 0.026, R
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.