| Title |
Effects of Repeated-Sprint Training in Hypoxia on Sea-Level Performance: A Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-017-0685-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franck Brocherie, Olivier Girard, Raphaël Faiss, Grégoire P. Millet |
| Abstract |
Repeated-sprint training in hypoxia (RSH) is a recent intervention regarding which numerous studies have reported effects on sea-level physical performance outcomes that are debated. No previous study has performed a meta-analysis of the effects of RSH. We systematically reviewed the literature and meta-analyzed the effects of RSH versus repeated-sprint training in normoxia (RSN) on key components of sea-level physical performance, i.e., best and mean (all sprint) performance during repeated-sprint exercise and aerobic capacity (i.e., maximal oxygen uptake [[Formula: see text]]). The PubMed/MEDLINE, SportDiscus(®), ProQuest, and Web of Science online databases were searched for original articles-published up to July 2016-assessing changes in physical performance following RSH and RSN. The meta-analysis was conducted to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the effects of RSH and RSN on sea-level performance outcomes. After systematic review, nine controlled studies were selected, including a total of 202 individuals (mean age 22.6 ± 6.1 years; 180 males). After data pooling, mean performance during repeated sprints (SMD = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.93; P = 0.05) was further enhanced with RSH when compared with RSN. Although non-significant, additional benefits were also observed for best repeated-sprint performance (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.89; P = 0.30) and [Formula: see text] (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.61; P = 0.41). Based on current scientific literature, RSH induces greater improvement for mean repeated-sprint performance during sea-level repeated sprinting than RSN. The additional benefit observed for best repeated-sprint performance and [Formula: see text] for RSH versus RSN was not significantly different. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 14% |
| France | 8 | 8% |
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| Australia | 4 | 4% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 43 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 59% |
| Scientists | 28 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 226 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 10% |
| Researcher | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 72 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 89 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 83 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2022.
All research outputs
#539,287
of 24,164,942 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#507
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,884
of 433,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,164,942 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 433,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.