ArticlePloS one2026
Rally and recover: Physiological demands between tennis drills.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined physiological recovery between repeated tennis drills in elite adolescent tennis players. Ten tennis players (5 males, 5 females; age 17 ± 2 years) underwent treadmill testing to establish maximal physiological characteristics. Several days later participants completed three standardized on-court tennis drills with fixed rest intervals, during which physiological parameters were monitored. A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare physiological responses across the three drills. [Formula: see text] utilization stayed above 75% in all drills, peaking during the first drill (p = 0.003). During recovery, [Formula: see text] utilization decreased from 58 ± 8% in the first recovery to 50 ± 9% (p = 0.018) and 47 ± 12% (p = 0.022) in the second and third recovery, respectively. The respiratory exchange ratio (RER) stayed below 1.0 during drills, while increasing during recovery periods, (1.07 ± 0.08, 1.00 ± 0.01, 1.04 ± 0.05; p = 0.014). Ventilatory equivalents for oxygen ([Formula: see text]) were stable (p = 0.054), while those for carbon dioxide ([Formula: see text]) increased progressively for each recovery period (29.5 ± 3.6, 31.5 ± 3.8, 32.3 ± 4.3; p < 0.001). Blood lactate concentration differed significantly across recovery periods (p = 0.035) with the lowest value in recovery period two (5.9 ± 2.0, 4.9 ± 1.9 and 5.6 ± 2.0 mmol·l-1). These findings highlight a sustained metabolic demand extending into the recovery phase during standardized tennis drills, characterized by substantial [Formula: see text] utilization and elevated respiratory compensation. This suggests a significant anaerobic contribution and underscores the intensity of the physiological load imposed even after exercise cessation.
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.