SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
From acute responses to long-term monitoring: a scoping review of the reliability and validity of biomechanical and physiological assessment tools in elite and highly trained swimmers.
Synthesis 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. 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
Abstract
backgroundScientific monitoring is fundamental to optimizing swimming performance, but its effectiveness relies on the validity and reliability of assessment tools.
objectiveFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), this scoping review aimed to synthesize physiological and biomechanical indicators applied in swimmers, with a particular focus on acute and long-term responses, as well as the reliability and validity of these indicators.
methodsWeb of Science, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus were searched using predefined keyword combinations, and study screening was conducted using ASReview. All extracted indicators were classified according to established conceptual definitions and predefined quantitative criteria (e.g., reliability: intraclass correlation coefficients and coefficients of variation; validity: Pearson correlation coefficients and coefficients of determination).
resultsA total of 41 studies were included, and 297 evaluation indicators were extracted for analysis. Existing research has predominantly concentrated on highly trained adult male swimmers, with limited discussion given to elite or world-class athletes, adolescents, and female swimmers. Acute testing dominates the literature (83.5%), far outweighing long-term monitoring approaches. In terms of indicator composition, biomechanical measures account for the majority (59%), with kinematic variables being the most frequently applied (61%). However, the overall methodological quality remains suboptimal: only approximately 8% of acute indicators and 3% of long-term indicators simultaneously achieved at least moderate standards of both reliability and validity. This indicates that the reliability and validity of acute swimming performance assessments have been discussed; there is a lack of research achieving high levels of reliability and validity, which is even more pronounced in long-term monitoring indicators.
conclusionResults reveal a fragmented landscape dominated by acute analysis of stroke mechanics in adult males, with a severe lack of multi-season monitoring evidence for female and adolescent swimmers. Crucially, key determinants of aquatic performance-specifically propulsive kinetics and metabolic cost-lack confirmed reliability for tracking adaptations across training macrocycles. Consequently, the field requires a shift from the proliferation of novel swim indices to the rigorous methodological consolidation of existing aquatic assessment protocols.
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.