SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Reliability of finger strength assessment methods in climbing: a systematic review.
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. 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
Background: This systematic review examined the reliability of finger flexor strength assessments in climbers, addressing the absence of a prior synthesis on this topic. The work is timely given sport climbing's inclusion in the Olympic Games and the growing focus on sport-specific performance diagnostics. Fifteen studies, comprising 747 participants (sample sizes 13-244) with varying skill levels, were included. Methods: Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and based on a protocol registered in INPLASY, the search encompassed Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Eligible studies involved climbers, employed a test-retest design, reported strength variables, and provided reliability parameters (ICC). Methodological quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT) and the Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL). Results: Fourteen studies reported high reliability (ICC > 0.75) in at least one assessment, while 12 studies showed very high ICC values for maximum isometric finger strength (MIFS) tests (median range: 0.85-0.99), indicating good to excellent reliability. Most studies ( Discussion: Adoption of advanced measurement technologies and harmonized protocols is recommended to enhance comparability, practical relevance, and training effectiveness. These measures may also contribute to greater standardization in research designs and facilitate translation of findings into applied settings. Conclusion: MIFS assessments with fixed-depth edges of approximately 20-23 mm consistently demonstrate high reliability and should be prioritized for standardized monitoring in both applied and research contexts. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-10-0070, identifier INPLASY2024100070.
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.