SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Rating of perceived exertion in continuous sports: a scoping review with evidence gap map.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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.
- Article
- Monitoring Patellar Tendon Stiffness in Relation to Load, Function and Pain.Sports medicine international open · 2026Article
- Training Load, Mileage, and Perceived Exertion as a Predictive Model of Injury and Illness in Women's Soccer.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Plyometric jump training micro- and high-dose effects on amateur basketball players athletic performance: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is widely used for assessing training load in sports due to its validity, simplicity, and utility. Despite its broad application, the diverse contexts and methodologies in which it is used warrant a comprehensive review of the existing evidence. Objective: This scoping review aims to map the current evidence on the use of RPE, focusing on its application, measurement methods, and reliability across different continuous sports. Methods: Databases PubMed, SportDiscus (via EBSCO), Scopus, and Web of Science (core collection) were systematically searched until 22 May 2025 using the search terms: ([(RPE) OR (rating of perceived exertion) OR (Borg Scale)] AND (load) AND [(sports) OR (exercise) OR athletes]) Studies were included in this review if they complied with the following criteria: (1) conducted in continuous modes of exercise, (2) considering the comparison with other internal and external load measures, (3) when healthy and trained athletes were studied, (4) written in English language. Results: A total of 234 studies involving 4,388 athletes were included in this review. Findings indicated that RPE is primarily used in training control and prescription (∼35%). A small number of studies focused directly on female athletes (∼7%), similarly master (∼1%) and elite athletes (∼13%) research was scarce. Conclusion: The findings suggest that although RPE is a valuable tool, variability in application across different exercise settings highlights the necessity to standardize its guidelines. Future research should focus on assessing the use of RPE in under-represented continuous sports. Systematic Review Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C9PW6.
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.