ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Construct differentiation and reliability of a novel curvilinear sprint test in female handball players.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe curved 6-m goal-area line offers a practical basis for assessing curvilinear sprinting in handball, yet sprint testing in the sport remains predominantly linear. This study evaluated the reliability and construct differentiation of a curvilinear sprint (CS) test based on this existing court marking.
methodsTwenty-five female handball players completed one familiarisation and two test sessions separated by 48 h. In each session, players performed three linear sprint (LS) trials and three CS trials in each direction over the same 21.85-m distance. Performance differences and session effects were examined using repeated-measures analysis of variance, while reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, coefficient of variation, typical error, minimal detectable change, and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsLS was faster than the right and left CS conditions by 0.80 and 0.83 s, respectively (both p < 0.001), while LS and CS shared 58% to 68% of their variance. Between-session ICCs for the CS conditions ranged from 0.88 to 0.89, with CVs of 1.66% to 1.83%, while three-trial within-session ICCs ranged from 0.95 to 0.98. Performance was faster in the second session (p = 0.003), although the changes were smaller than the corresponding minimal detectable change values. CONCLUSıONS: Curvilinear sprint performance is strongly related to, but not fully represented by, linear sprint performance. The test showed good repeatability and provides a practical option for directly assessing curvilinear sprint ability in female handball players.
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.