SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Evaluation of methods to quantify aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise - a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.
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.
- Intra-set rest preserves barbell velocity during a free-weight back squat exercise by shifting energy system contribution.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Energy Structure of Repeated On-Ice Efforts and Its Dependence on the Aerobic Capacity of a Hockey Player.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Energy metabolism during sports and exercise involves both aerobic and anaerobic pathways, with anaerobic contribution playing a key role in various decisive moments during competition. However, unlike the aerobic contribution, quantifying the anaerobic contribution remains challenging due to the lack of a gold standard. This review aims to systematically assess the reliability and validity of different methods to quantify the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise, thereby clarifying the level of evidence supporting each method. Methods: The search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, including the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and BISp-surf on June 11, 2024. Studies quantifying and evaluating the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise in humans without diseases, injuries, or disabilities were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist rating reliability, measurement error, and validity, whereby the overall score was determined using the worst-score-count method. A best-evidence synthesis was also performed to define the direction and level of evidence. Results: Of the 2,120 studies identified, 34 met the eligibility criteria. Overall, five different methods to quantify aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise were identified: (i) maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD), (ii) PCr-La-O Discussion: To quantify the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise, the MAOD emerged as the most evaluated method and the only one with strong evidence for both reliability and validity. However, as the PCr-La-O
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.