ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Standardised activities in wheelchair rugby, comparison between athletes with coordination impairment and athletes with other impairments.
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.
- Performance, Biomechanical Demands, Injury Burden, and Health Surveillance in Wheelchair Court Sports and Selected Para Sport Cohorts: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Linking field-based mobility tests to match-derived performance in wheelchair rugby: understanding test-match agreement across impairment types.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To determine if athletes with coordination impairment (CI) can continue playing wheelchair rugby (WR), while an evidence-based classification system, including impairment tests for CI is not yet available. This is a defensible practise if they show similar activity limitations as athletes with other eligible impairment types (OI) within the same sports class. Methods: Standardised activities were measured in 58 elite WR athletes; 14 with CI and 44 with OI. Wheelchair activities consisted of 20-meter sprint, 12-meter sprint with full stop, intermittent sprint (3-meter sprint, stop, 3-meter sprint, stop, 6-meter sprint with full stop), sprint-curve-slalom-curve, turn on the spot 180°, turn on the spot 90°, stop, turn 90°in the same direction, X-test (short circuit with sharp turns) without the ball. Ball activities consisted of maximal throwing distance, precision throwing short (25% of maximum throw) and long (75% of maximal throw) distance and X-test with the ball (pick-up the ball and dribble whilst pushing). Descriptive statistics were used and Spearman's Rank correlation was assessed for athletes with CI and OI for each outcome measure. Differences between athletes with CI and OI were assessed using a Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Most activities showed a high correlation with the athlete class in both athletes with CI and athletes with OI. Furthermore, outcome measures of athletes with CI overlapped with athletes with OI in the same sports class for all activities. There was a trend for worse performance in athletes with CI in turn on the spot 90°, stop, turn 90°in the same direction, the short distance one handed precision throw ( Discussion: Despite the current lack of evidence based impairment tests for CI, it is a defensible practise to not exclude athletes with CI from WR with the current classification system. The trends for differences in performance that were found can support athletes and coaches in optimising performance of athletes with CI.
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.