ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Reliability and criterion validity of the concept 2 SkiErg™ to assess 1,000-m on-snow, time trial performance-a case study.
Article 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
Objectives: This study investigated the reliability and criterion validity of the Concept 2 SkiErg™ to assess 1,000-m on-snow, time trial performance using the classical double poling technique. Methods: Ten athletes (5 males and females) from a National cross-country ski team participated in the study and completed a 1,000-m time trial on snow, as well as two 1,000-m time trials on the Concept 2 SkiErg™ in a temperature-controlled room during a 4-day training camp. Results: There was a significant decrease in time from test 1 to test 2 of 4.87 s [238.3 ± 26.1 vs. 233.4 ± 23.9 s; 95% limits of agreement (LoA): -5.5, 15.3]. The Concept 2 SkiErg™ time-trial had a coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.6% and the standard error of measurement was 3.8 s. When compared to the on-snow time-trial, the Concept 2 SkiErg™ time-trial demonstrated a mean bias of 20.7 s (95% LoA; 11.6, 29.8) and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.72. Conclusion: The Concept 2 SkiErg™ demonstrated excellent single-trial reliability. However, there was significant proportional bias in the Concept 2 SkiErg™ relative to the on-snow test and agreement between the two was relatively poor. Research using a larger sample and different trial durations is required to further validate the Concept 2 SkiErg™ for cross-country skiing performance testing.
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.