ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2025
Estimating Maximal Aerobic Speed in Academy Soccer Players: A Comparison Between Time Trial Methods and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aerobic fitness is crucial to team sport performance and can be practically estimated through field-based assessments of maximal aerobic speed (MAS) in soccer players. However, method comparisons are underexplored. This study compared MAS estimation via a 6-min distance trial (6minDT), 1800-m time trial (1800mTT) and 30-15 intermittent fitness test (30-15IFT) and qualitative preferences in academy soccer players. Twenty-six male players (age: 17.2 ± 0.6 years; stature: 178.4 ± 5.1 cm; body mass: 71.8 ± 7.7 kg) completed a 30-15IFT, 6minDT and 1800mTT in a counterbalanced order. Total distance was measured via 10 Hz global positioning system units, with MAS defined as 87% of 30-15IFT finishing speed (vIFT) and distance divided by time to completion for the 6minDT and 1800mTT. Pearson's correlations calculated associations between MAS estimates, and a robust repeated measures ANOVA estimated marginal mean differences between tests. A very large association was observed between performance in the 1800mTT and 6minDT (r = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.86). Large associations were observed between the 30-15IFT and 6minDT and 1800mTT (6minDT: r = 0.65; 0.35 to 0.83; 1800mTT: 0.66, 0.37 to 0.84), respectively. MAS estimated from the 30-15IFT was significantly higher than the 6minDT (0.57, 0.50 to 0.65 m·s
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.