ArticleAmerican journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation2025
Expert Opinion on Handcycling Classification: A Delphi Study Based on Scientific Evidence.
Article in American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA Paralympic sport classification system aims to minimize the impact of the athlete's impairment on performance, thus contributing to a fair competition. The aim of this study was to investigate consensus among an expert panel regarding statements on recent scientific findings and their implications for handcycling classification.
designThree rounds of online questionnaires were sent to an international panel ( N = 53) consisting of para-cyclists, para-cycling coaches and team managers, classifiers, and researchers within para-sport or Paralympic classification. The second and third questionnaire rounds were based on insights gathered from the previous round.
resultsConsensus was reached on the inclusion of upper-limb function, shoulder function, and lower-limb function in the classification assessment of athletes competing in recumbent handcycling positions. In contrast, topics related to the role of trunk function, hand function, and equipment settings did not achieve consensus within the panel.
conclusionsThe future of handcycling classification requires consideration of these recent findings and consensus. Nevertheless, to continuously develop its system toward an evidence-based classification, the handcycling sport should further research the remaining questions and controversial topics to rely less on subjective decisions.
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.