ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
The validity and utility of the all-out test for forearm flexor critical force.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An all-out test has been created to measure critical force (CF) of the forearm flexor muscles, but its suitability for rock climbing is unclear. We recruited 26 participants (14 male; 12 female), to assess the reliability and validity of the all-out CF test. Using a hang board and force plate, participants completed (i) two 4-min all out tests on separate days and (i) four constant-force tests to the limit of tolerance on two additional days. CF was greater in the all-out protocol (122 [56] N) compared to the constant-force protocol (98 [43] N), with excellent consistency between the two protocols (ICC(3,1) = 0.93, p < 0.001). In contrast, W' was not different between protocols (p = 0.120), but there was only moderate absolute agreement (ICC(2,1) = 0.65, p < 0 .001) between protocols. For the repeated all-out tests, there was excellent test-retest reliability for CF (ICC = 0.97, p < 0.001) and W' (ICC = 0.97, p < 0 .001). CF derived from the constant-force (rho = 0.60, p = 0.044) protocol was related to self-reported International Rock Climbing Research Association redpoint score from the previous 12 months, whereas the all-out CF (rho = 0.59, p = 0.05) and both measures of W' were not (p > 0.05). While potentially useful for tracking changes in forearm flexor performance, the all-out test does not accurately measure the highest sustainable intensity these muscles can perform, and it likely unsuitable for exercise prescription, limiting its utility in rock climbing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287394What 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.