ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Fighting fair: community perspectives on the fairness of performance enhancement in esports.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparable improvements in selective, but not sustained, attention in response to a multi-ingredient nootropic formulation when compared with caffeine.European journal of nutrition · 2026Trial
- Neurofeedback Training Protocols in Sports: A Systematic Review of Recent Advances in Performance, Anxiety, and Emotional Regulation.Brain sciences · 2024Review
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
Aims: This study aims to explore community perspectives on enhancer usage in competitive gaming and esports, focusing on the perception of fairness and concerns about various potential performance enhancers. Methods: We conducted both qualitative and quantitative surveys to understand the competitive gaming community's opinions on different types of performance enhancers and their potential impact on esports. A thematic analysis was performed to identify key themes in how players rationalize their opinions. Conclusions: The gaming community differentiates between potential performance enhancers based on how problematic they are for the esports scene, with the most concern surrounding hard drugs, pharmaceuticals, and brain stimulation interventions. Participants who are more invested in competitive gaming tend to be more sceptical of enhancers and express greater concerns. Four themes were identified in the thematic analysis: (1) risk, (2) morality, (3) enhancer effects, and (4) regulation. To increase acceptance and perceived legitimacy in decision-making, it is recommended that regulators engage a variety of stakeholders in transparent decision-making processes when forming tournament rules and regulations. This will help address the fragmented regulatory landscape and prevent potential differences in the perception of tournament winners based on the governing body supervising the competition.
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.