ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
Test-Retest Reliability of Physiological Resilience During and After Prolonged Moderate-Intensity Running in Well-Trained Runners.
Article in European journal of sport science, 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.
- Determinants of Physiological Resilience Among Recreational-To-Competitive Endurance Runners.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In previous research, physiological resilience has been measured as deterioration of the physiological profile during prolonged exercise. This study aimed to evaluate the test-retest reliability of physiological resilience during prolonged moderate-intensity running. Physiological profile of 26 well-trained endurance runners (10 females) was tested in nonfatigued state as well as during and after two identical ∼2.5-h long physiological resilience tests at ∼89% of VT1 (ventilatory threshold 1) speed within an average period of 13 days. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), coefficient of variations (CV%), and typical errors (TE and TE%). Change in maximal speed achieved in the incremental test (sPeak) was the most reliable metric and showed good reliability (ICC: 0.81 and TE: 1.8). The drifts in running economy (RE) and the heart rate (HR) had moderate to good reliability in the second half of the trial (ICC: 0.52-0.80 and TE 1.7-2.4). The changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO
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.