ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2025
Playing Surface Impacts Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (Level 1) Performance and Validity of Indirect VO2max Estimation.
Article in International journal of exercise 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
This study compared performance on the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (YYIR1) and the agility t-test between two playing surfaces, artificial turf and natural grass. This study also assessed agreement between estimated VO2max from the YYIR1 on artificial turf and natural grass with laboratory measured VO2max. Male collegiate soccer players completed three experimental sessions on separate days: YYIR1 and t-test on artificial turf, YYIR1 and t-test on natural grass, and a laboratory VO2max test. The validated Bangsbo et al. equation was used to estimate VO2max from YYIR1 distance. Participants covered more distance (2370 ± 662 vs. 1441 ± 463 m, p < .001) and reached higher maximal aerobic speed (17.29 ± 0.99 vs. 15.76 ± 0.78 km/h, p < .001) on natural grass. Agility t-test was faster on grass (8.75 ± 0.53 vs. 9.43 ± 0.73 s, p < .001). Grass estimated VO2max was higher than laboratory VO2max and turf estimated VO2max (58.0 ± 4.5 vs. 54.2 ± 3.4 vs. 49.8 ± 3.4 mL/kg/min, p < .001). Grass estimated VO2max was positively correlated with turf estimated VO2max (r = 0.91, p < .001). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that grass estimated VO2max overestimated laboratory VO2max and turf estimated VO2max underestimated laboratory VO2max (p < .001). Findings indicate playing surface is a critical factor in the performance outcome and accuracy of field-based aerobic fitness assessment. Findings emphasize the importance of considering environmental and contextual variables when administering and interpreting assessment data.
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.