Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38175461›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Current Guidelines for the Implementation of Flywheel Resistance Training Technology in Sports: A Consensus Statement.

Marco Beato, Kevin L de Keijzer, Alejandro Muñoz-Lopez, Javier Raya-González, Marco Pozzo, Björn A Alkner, Antonio Dello Iacono, Jordi Vicens-Bordas, Giuseppe Coratella, Sergio Maroto-Izquierdo and 9 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

Marco BeatoSchool of Allied Health Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK. m.beato@uos.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5373-2211
Kevin L de KeijzerSchool of Allied Health Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK.
Alejandro Muñoz-LopezDepartamento de Motricidad Humana y Rendimiento Deportivo, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Javier Raya-GonzálezFaculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain.
Marco PozzoMaster de Fútbol, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.
Björn A AlknerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eksjö, Region Jönköping County, Sweden.
Antonio Dello IaconoSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland.
Jordi Vicens-BordasSport, Exercise, and Human Movement (SEaHM), University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
Giuseppe CoratellaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Sergio Maroto-Izquierdoi+HeALTH, European University Miguel de Cervantes (UEMC), Valladolid, Spain.
Oliver Gonzalo-SkokDepartment of Communication and Education, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.
Stuart A McErlain-NaylorSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Fernando Martin-RiveraResearch Group in Prevention and Health in Exercise and Sport, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Jose L Hernandez-DavoFaculty of Health Sciences, Isabel I University, Burgos, Spain.
Luis Suarez ArronesDepartment of Sport Sciences, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.
Rafael SabidoSport Research Centre, Department of Sport Sciences, Miguel Hernández University, Elche, Spain.
Moises de HoyoDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Rodrigo Fernandez-GonzaloDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lena NorrbrandDivision of Environmental Physiology, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Solna, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlywheel resistance training has become more integrated within resistance training programs in a variety of sports due to the neuromuscular, strength, and task-specific enhancements reported with this training.

objectiveThis paper aimed to present the consensus reached by internationally recognized experts during a meeting on current definitions and guidelines for the implementation of flywheel resistance training technology in sports.

methodsNineteen experts from different countries took part in the consensus process; 16 of them were present at the consensus meeting (18 May 2023) while three submitted their recommendations by e-mail. Prior to the meeting, evidence summaries were developed relating to areas of priority. This paper discusses the available evidence and consensus process from which recommendations were made regarding the appropriate use of flywheel resistance training technology in sports. The process to gain consensus had five steps: (1) performing a systematic review of systematic reviews, (2) updating the most recent umbrella review published on this topic, (3) first round discussion among a sample of the research group included in this consensus statement, (4) selection of research group members-process of the consensus meeting and formulation of the recommendations, and (5) the consensus process. The systematic analysis of the literature was performed to select the most up-to-date review papers available on the topic, which resulted in nine articles; their methodological quality was assessed according to AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review 2) and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation). Statements and recommendations scoring 7-9 were considered appropriate.

resultsThe recommendations were based on the evidence summary and researchers' expertise; the consensus statement included three statements and seven recommendations for the use of flywheel resistance training technology. These statements and recommendations were anonymously voted on and qualitatively analyzed. The three statements reported a score ranging from 8.1 to 8.8, and therefore, all statements included in this consensus were considered appropriate. The recommendations (1-7) had a score ranging from 7.7 to 8.6, and therefore, all recommendations were considered appropriate.

conclusionsBecause of the consensus achieved among the experts in this project, it is suggested that practitioners and researchers should adopt the guidelines reported in this consensus statement regarding the use of flywheel resistance technology in sports.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansSports

Identifiers

PMID38175461
PMCPMC10978721

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.