ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Comparative analysis of fixed and individualised speed zones for quantifying external match load in female wheelchair basketball.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study compared fixed and individualized speed zone methods for quantifying external match load (EML) across classification and playing levels in women's wheelchair basketball (WB) and examined their relationship with internal match load (IML) measures. Methods: EML of 31 well trained female players (age: 28 ± 7 years, experience: 11 ± 5 years, weekly training: 12 ± 4 h) were quantified across 13 international (INT) and 5 Women's Premier League (WPL) games using two inertial measurement units. A linear mixed model compared the percentage time in fixed and individualized speed zones and correlations with IML (eTRIMP, sRPE) using Pearson and Spearman Rho. Results: Individualized zones recorded more time (10%) in low speed (Z3) and less time (0.3-5.9%) in moderate to very high-speed zones (Z4-Z6) versus fixed ( Conclusions: Speed zone method influences high-intensity movement assessments, varying by playing level and classification. Neither method optimally related to IML, highlighting the need for calibrated, consistent thresholds.
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.