SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Field-based tests for determining critical speed among runners and its practical application: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. 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.
- Can Non-Conventional Blood Biomarkers Improve Running Performance Prediction? A Proof of Concept.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Physical Capacity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adolescent Male Soccer Players: A Three-Month Follow-Up Study.Cureus · 2025Article
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
Introduction: This review focuses exclusively on field-based critical speed (CS) tests for runners, aiming to evaluate key testing conditions to optimize field-based assessments and their practical applications. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in July 2024 using terms like "critical power," "critical speed," "testing," and "field condition" along with related keywords. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, studies were systematically identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and evaluated for the validity, reliability, and applicability of field-based methods for determining CS in runners. Results: From an initial pool of 450 studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria. The time trial (TT) test and the 3-minute all-out test (3MT) emerged as the most frequently used field-based methods, demonstrating high reliability when conducted under specific conditions. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that while field-based CS testing is a practical alternative to lab-based assessments, obtaining reliable results relies on following recommended testing settings, particularly for TT tests. By outlining the practical applications and conditions necessary for accurate CS assessment, this review supports athletes and coaches in applying CS testing effectively to enhance training strategies and performance.
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.