ArticlePloS one2026
Experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing: A scoping review.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFencing and wheelchair fencing are Olympic and Paralympic sports with growing global participation and increasing scientific interest. However, the overall structure, methodological profile, and thematic distribution of experimental and quantitative observational research in both has not been systematically characterized.
objectiveTo map the scope, methodological characteristics, and thematic focus of experimental and quantitative observational studies involving fencing and wheelchair fencing athletes.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost were searched for studies containing the terms "fencing," "fencer," or "fencers" in the title or abstract. Eligible studies employed experimental or quantitative observational designs and included fencing athletes as participants. Data were extracted using a structured framework and summarized descriptively across study design, research domain, participant characteristics, sample size, weapon discipline, and geographic distribution.
resultsA total of 445 studies met inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased substantially after 2015. Laboratory-based (35.7%) and cross-sectional (30.3%) designs predominated, whereas prospective cohort studies (5.4%) and randomized controlled trials (4.3%) were comparatively uncommon. Performance and skill analysis constituted the largest research domain (41.1%), while injury/epidemiology (7.9%), recovery/rehabilitation (4.3%), and training load/fatigue (1.6%) research were limited. Most studies involved small sample sizes with fewer than 50 participants and focused on able-bodied athletes; wheelchair fencing was markedly underrepresented. Sex was not specified in 24.3% of studies, and weapon discipline was not reported in 44.9%. Research output was geographically concentrated in Europe and select North American and East Asian countries.
conclusionsAlthough fencing research has expanded rapidly in recent years, it remains methodologically and thematically uneven. Greater emphasis on longitudinal and interventional designs, injury surveillance, rehabilitation research, improved reporting practices, and inclusive representation across sex, weapon discipline, geographic regions, and wheelchair athletes are necessary to strengthen the translational relevance and evidence-based development of fencing sport science.
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.