ArticleBiology of sport2024
Current practices in physical fitness assessment and monitoring among coaches of individual and team sports: a survey in Portugal, Spain, and Romania.
Article in Biology of sport, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Motion Capture Technologies for Athletic Performance Enhancement and Injury Risk Assessment: A Review for Multi-Sport Organizations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize surveyed coaches and elucidate the practices of physical fitness assessment and monitoring for both male and female athletes across three countries. A total of 165 coaches participated by completing a comprehensive 32-question survey. Pre-season assessments are a priority for coaches, with a significant range from 60.5% to 87.7% in Romania, while Portuguese and Spanish coaches tend to prefer testing during the competition (26.3% and 16.9%, respectively). Portuguese and Spanish coaches predominantly favor aerobic tests (50% and 46.8% respectively), whereas Romanian coaches exhibit a preference for sprint (56.9%) and skill tests (52.3%). Notably, change of direction tests are less commonly employed, ranging from 10.5% to 21% across the countries. In terms of exercise intensity determination, Portuguese coaches predominantly employ maximal heart rate (31.6%), while Spanish coaches often rely on the 220-age formula or perceived exertion (27.4%). For strength assessment, Portuguese coaches lean towards direct (34.2%) or estimated (31.6%) maximal repetition methods. When it comes to maximal speed sprint, Portuguese and Romanian coaches show preference (50% and 43.1% respectively), while Spanish coaches exhibit a relative lack of emphasis on individualized speed measures (37.1%). Perceptual scales are the preferred method for recovery monitoring, with adoption rates of 57.9% in Portugal, 53.2% in Spain, and 44.6% in Romania. In summary, this study underscores the distinct assessment and monitoring practices employed by coaches in Portugal, Spain, and Romania. These findings are in alignment with established literature standards, highlighting the diversity of approaches used in different countries.
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.