Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38455443›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2024

Analysis of Pushing Forces During the Water Polo Eggbeater: Reliability and Validity of a Novel Approach.

Félix Croteau, Elouan Lanoé, Julien Clément

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Félix CroteauInstitut national du sport du Québec, Montréal, Canada.
Elouan LanoéInstitut national du sport du Québec, Montréal, Canada.
Julien ClémentInstitut national du sport du Québec, Montréal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Water polo players benefit from greater odds of success when maintaining their tactical position against their opponents. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of a water-based resistance test to replicate this skill.Thirty-three water polo players participated in this study (19 males and 14 females, 14 from senior and 19 from junior national teams). Data were collected during two regular training sessions, separated by one week, using a load cell to instrument a weight stack resistance setup on the pool deck. Performance parameters such as mean force, maximum force, mean peak force and total impulse were defined with custom Python scripts. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC3,1). Group comparisons were explored between male and female players. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The reliability findings were high to very high for the mean force, maximum force, mean peak force, inter-stroke range, and total impulse (ICC 0.85-0.93, p < 0.01). Group comparisons showed significantly greater values in male players for these variables (p < 0.01, ES = 1.05-9.36) with large to very large effect sizes. However, there was no significant difference in endurance measured between sexes (p = 0.88, ES = 0.04). This study presents a methodology with satisfactory metrological qualities for field applications using simple and affordable equipment. The testing apparatus presented in this study can readily be replicated in a variety of training environments by practitioners working with water polo teams. Coaches can use this approach to evaluate individual player progress or to compare performance across a group of water polo players.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceWater SportsData AccuracyFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSwimmingAquaticperformance analysisstrengthswimming

Identifiers

PMID38455443
PMCPMC10915605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.