ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Integration of the wingate anaerobic test into a virtual reality- based evaluation system.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Adaption of the Wingate Test to Virtual Reality Based Wearable Technology
Validity and Reliability of the Immersive Virtual Reality Adaptation of the Five-Repetition Sit-to- Stand Test in Asymptomatic Young Adults
Validity and Reliability of a Mixed Reality-Based Adaptation of the 6-Minute Walk Test in Asymptomatic Adults
Validity and Reliability of the Mixed Reality Adaptation of the 6-Minute Walk, Timed Up and Go, and Five-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Tests in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the advancement of technology, it is considered an important step to transfer assessment methods to the virtual environment as it provides individuals with the opportunity for equal feedback, improves test performance and allows for testing with maximum participation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and differences between the classic Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) and a virtual reality-based Wingate Test (VR-WAnT) on the test performance of athletes and to investigate their applicability to athletes.
methodsThirty male athletes aged between 18 and 25 years from professional football teams were included in the study. The athletes' age, height, weight, total years of sport experience, scores on the system usability scale and satisfaction with the two different testing methods were assessed. A scenario covering all phases of the WAnT and requiring no external cues was prepared by the project team and integrated into the virtual reality headset. Athletes were first assessed using the classic WAnT in a controlled laboratory environment, and two days later the same athletes were assessed using the VR-WAnT in the same environment. Maximum power, minimum power, average power and fatigue index data from the test system were recorded for analysis.
resultsThe results of the study showed no statistically significant differences in maximum power, minimum power, average power and fatigue index values between the two methods (p > 0.05). However, according to the satisfaction measurement, the results of the VR-WAnT were statistically significantly higher compared to the classic WAnT (p = 0.026).
conclusionsVR-WAnT may be considered a promising alternative for anaerobic performance testing due to its potential to enhance user experience and satisfaction. It is also believed that the test may offer greater comfort for both practitioner and athletes, while introducing a novel dimension to physiotherapy and rehabilitation assessment processes.
trial registrationNCT06661395 (Registration Date: 24 Oct 2024).
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.