ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Reflections on Conducting a Large Replication Project in Sports and Exercise Science.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental Toughness and 2K Rowing Performance in Division II Female Collegiate Athletes: A Longitudinal Analysis Using Mixed-Effects Modeling.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Demographic Profiles and Methodologies Used in the Generation and Validation of Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Stronger hearts, weaker leaps? The cardiac power paradox in elite soccer.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Handgrip Strength Asymmetry in Female Basketball Players: The Critical Role of Arm Position and the Challenge of Statistical Power.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
This review reflects on the lessons and limitations of the first large, collaborative replication project in sports and exercise science. We discuss the challenges and barriers faced, while also exploring the broader contribution of replication to the field. This project faced many practical challenges when preparing studies for replication, specifically the poor reporting of statistical information, the availability of original raw data and the prioritisation of feasibility at the risk of some bias. However, we believe these issues reflect the larger sports and exercise science field. Therefore, our research culture needs to change to minimise the active engagement in behaviours that reduce reproducibility and replicability, and enable collective evaluation of research in line with the foundations of scientific rigour. In addition, discourse with the original study authors was a challenging process as many were unwilling to engage and this indicates a problematic perception of replication. We also reflect on the contribution of replication to theory development in sports and exercise science so that this review can serve as a valuable resource for understanding replication and can aid future replication efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.