ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
Does Test Duration Matter? Comparing 1-s and 5-s Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Protocols for Performance Diagnostics in Basketball Players.
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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare kinetic characteristics of a 1-s isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) protocol with the traditional 5-s protocol and examine their associations with basketball-specific performance. Twenty-five Tier 3 male basketball players performed standardized 1-s and 5-s IMTP trials. Performance assessments included 20-m linear sprint times (0-5, 0-10, and 0-20 m splits), countermovement jump and squat jump height, 505 and t-test times. The 1-s protocol produced slightly lower net absolute and relative peak force (p < 0.05, g = -0.28 to -0.25), but greater rate of force development (RFD) over 0-90, 0-200, and 0-250 ms (p < 0.05, g = 0.53 to 0.59). Absolute and relative peak force showed significant moderate-to-large correlations with 5-m sprint time (p < 0.05, r = -0.41 to -0.52), whereas 1-s RFD over 0-200 and 0-250 ms showed significant moderate-to-large correlations, with RFD over 0-200 ms also showing a significant moderate correlation with 20-m time (p < 0.05, r = -0.40 to -0.51). Only 5-s relative peak force showed a significant moderate correlation with 5-m time (p < 0.05, r = -0.40). Squat jump height showed significant moderate-to-large correlations with peak force and RFD variables in both protocols (p < 0.05, r = 0.47 to 0.58), whereas countermovement jump height (p > 0.05, r = 0.13 to 0.39) and change-of-direction performance (p > 0.05, r = -0.27 to 0.01) showed no significant associations. The 1-s IMTP protocol produced greater RFD despite slightly lower net peak force and showed broader associations with sprint acceleration performance.
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.