ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Validity and agreement of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test for estimating aerobic and performance-related parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relative, individualized, or normalized? A conceptual clarification of running speed terminology in soccer.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
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
Accurate assessment of aerobic capacity is crucial for athlete monitoring. The 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30–15IFT) provides a practical field-based alternative to laboratory treadmill tests (ITRT), but its validity remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the criterion-related validity of 30–15IFT for estimating maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), maximal heart rate (HRmax), and maximal running velocity (MRV) compared with ITRT. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were searched up to September 2025. Studies directly comparing 30–15IFT and ITRT were included, and methodological quality was assessed using PEDro and QUADAS-2/C tools. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled biases, limits of agreement (LOA), heterogeneity, and publication bias. Eight studies (n = 158) of moderate quality (PEDro = 3–5) were included. Pooled bias for VO₂max was 1.88 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ (P = 0.15), HRmax bias was 4.35 beats·min⁻¹ (P = 0.054), and MRV bias was 3.08 km·h⁻¹ (P < 0.001). Correlations were high for VO₂max (r = 0.69) and HRmax (r = 0.85), and moderate for MRV (r = 0.62). However, relatively wide LOA were observed across all outcomes (VO2max: -5.28 to 9.04 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; HRmax: −4.97 to + 13.66 beats·min⁻¹; MRV:1.09 to 5.08 km·h⁻¹), indicating substantial individual-level variability. Overall, these findings support the use of the 30–15IFT for group-level assessment and monitoring of aerobic and performance-related parameters in athletes. Nevertheless, individual-level interpretation—particularly of absolute VO₂max values—should be approached with caution due to limited agreement with laboratory-based reference measures.
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.