ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Test-retest and intrasession reliability of assisted sprint outcome measurements using a motorized resistance device.
Article 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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine reliability of assisted sprint outcome measurements using a motorized resistance device (MRD). A total of 21 participants (16 males and 5 females; age 22.3 ± 3.9 years, body mass 75.2 ± 6.9 kg, height 177.9 ± 6.8 cm) completed two assisted sprint tests on four different test sessions while exposed to an external load (3 kg) provided by the MRD. Outcome variables included time, top speed, maximum acceleration and 5 m split times and speeds. Intrasession and test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), typical error (TE), smallest worthwhile (SWC) and moderate worthwhile change (MDC). For test-retest reliability mostly high to extremely high ICC values (>0.77), and good (<5%) CV values were observed for all outcome measurements. Specifically, all outcome measurements showed high to extremely high relative reliability (ICC ≥ 0.95) except 0-5 m time (0.86) and maximum acceleration (0.77). Good absolute reliability was observed for all outcome measurements (CV range: 0.9-3.7) except maximum acceleration (8.7). Furthermore, most outcome variables were rated as good and ok for SWC. Similar findings were observed for intrasession reliability with very high ICC values for all outcome measurements except maximum acceleration (0.85-0.93) and 0-5 time for session 2-4 (0.88-0.92). Similarly, CV was good for all outcome measurements for all sessions except maximum acceleration (5.7-5.9%). In addition, all outcome measurements had good to ok SWC, except for maximum acceleration. In conclusion, the present study shows that the MRD can obtain reliable assisted sprint outcome measurements and thereby provide coaches and researchers with new opportunities to advance, monitor and evaluate sprint training.
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.