Experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing: A scoping review.

Experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing: A scoping review - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PLoS One . 2026 Jun 1;21(6):e0350383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350383 Experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing: A scoping review Katharine Holmes 1 , Lindsay Bottoms 2, * Editor: Yih-Kuen Jan 3 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States of America 2 Department of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom 3 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. ✉ * E-mail: l.bottoms@herts.ac.uk Roles Katharine Holmes : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Lindsay Bottoms : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Yih-Kuen Jan : Editor Received 2026 Mar 10; Accepted 2026 May 13; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Holmes, Bottoms This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13225351  PMID: 42224339 Abstract Background Fencing and wheelchair fencing are Olympic and Paralympic sports with growing global participation and increasing scientific interest. However, the overall structure, methodological profile, and thematic distribution of experimental and quantitative observational research in both has not been systematically characterized. Objective To map the scope, methodological characteristics, and thematic focus of experimental and quantitative observational studies involving fencing and wheelchair fencing athletes. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost were searched for studies containing the terms “fencing,” “fencer,” or “fencers” in the title or abstract. Eligible studies employed experimental or quantitative observational designs and included fencing athletes as participants. Data were extracted using a structured framework and summarized descriptively across study design, research domain, participant characteristics, sample size, weapon discipline, and geographic distribution. Results A total of 445 studies met inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased substantially after 2015. Laboratory-based (35.7%) and cross-sectional (30.3%) designs predominated, whereas prospective cohort studies (5.4%) and randomized controlled trials (4.3%) were comparatively uncommon. Performance and skill analysis constituted the largest research domain (41.1%), while injury/epidemiology (7.9%), recovery/rehabilitation (4.3%), and training load/fatigue (1.6%) research were limited. Most studies involved small sample sizes with fewer than 50 participants and focused on able-bodied athletes; wheelchair fencing was markedly underrepresented. Sex was not specified in 24.3% of studies, and weapon discipline was not reported in 44.9%. Research output was geographically concentrated in Europe and select North American and East Asian countries. Conclusions Although fencing research has expanded rapidly in recent years, it remains methodologically and thematically uneven. Greater emphasis on longitudinal and interventional designs, injury surveillance, rehabilitation research, improved reporting practices, and inclusive representation across sex, weapon discipline, geographic regions, and wheelchair athletes are necessary to strengthen the translational relevance and evidence-based development of fencing sport science. Introduction Fencing and wheelchair fencing are Olympic and Paralympic combat sports characterized by high-intensity, intermittent exchanges requiring rapid acceleration, deceleration, unilateral lunging, and complex tactical decision-making [ 1 – 5 ]. Fencing is one of only four sports to have been included in every modern Olympic Games since 1896 [ 6 ], and wheelchair fencing has been contested at every Paralympic Games since its debut in Rome in 1960 [ 7 ]. Both disciplines require technical precision, reaction speed, neuromuscular coordination, and strategic adaptability under time pressure [ 8 ]. Although locomotor mechanics differ between able-bodied and wheelchair formats, each involves rapid upper extremity actions, dynamic balance or postural control, and repeated high-intensity efforts within structured competitive bouts. Participation in fencing often spans from early childhood into later adulthood, resulting in a broad age range and diverse developmental pathways. International engagement has expanded substantially in recent decades across both able-bodied and wheelchair formats. The International Fencing Federation (FIE) comprises 150 member nations [ 9 ], World Para Fencing (WPF) 73 member nations [ 10 ], and USA Fencing reports over 40,000 registered members, reflecting the substantial global and national presence of the sport [ 11 , 12 ]. Scientific investigation has expanded alongside this growth, encompassing biomechanics, physiology, performance analysis, psychology, and injury research. Studies have examined movement mechanics [ 1 , 13 , 14 ], reaction time [ 2 , 5 , 15 ], energy system demands [ 8 , 16 ], tactical patterns [ 17 , 18 ], and musculoskeletal injury profiles [ 19 – 22 ]. However, the literature remains dispersed across heterogeneous methodologies and thematic domains, and its overall structural profile has not been systematically characterized. Without such mapping, it is difficult to identify methodological imbalances, thematic concentration, reporting gaps, or underrepresented athlete populations. Scoping reviews are well suited to describe the breadth and organization of complex research fields, particularly where study designs and outcomes are diverse. Rather than evaluating intervention effects, scoping reviews provide structured overviews of study characteristics, highlight gaps, and inform future research priorities. To date, no comprehensive scoping review has mapped the experimental and quantitative observational literature in fencing. In sport science, structural concentration within certain methodologies or domains may shape practice, funding priorities, and athlete support systems. Mapping these patterns is therefore necessary not only to describe the literature but to inform strategic development of balanced, inclusive, and translationally relevant research agendas. The objective of this study was therefore to systematically characterize the scope, methodological profile, and thematic distribution of experimental and quantitative observational research involving fencing athletes. By examining publication trends, study designs, research domains, participant characteristics, and geographic representation, this review aims to provide a structural overview of the field and support more balanced and inclusive development of fencing sport science. Materials and methods Study design This study was conducted as a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The review protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) to enhance transparency and methodological rigor. The objective of this review was to systematically map the scope, methodological structure, and thematic distribution of experimental and quantitative observational research involving fencing athletes. The guiding research question was: What is the scope, methodological profile, and thematic focus of experimental and quantitative observational research conducted in fencing athletes? Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion if they employed an experimental or quantitative observational design and included fencing athletes as study participants. Eligible designs included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized interventions, controlled laboratory experiments, field-based experiments or testing, prospective cohort studies, retrospective observational studies, and cross-sectional studies with quantitative outcomes. Studies involving multiple sports were included only if fencing athletes were analyzed as a distinct subgroup and fencing-specific results were reported. Eligible outcomes included any quantitative measures related to injury, biomechanics, physiology, performance, training load, fatigue, recovery, health, or psychological factors. Studies were excluded if they were case reports, case series, qualitative-only studies, narrative reviews, editorials, coaching commentaries, historical or rule-based articles, or if fencing participants were aggregated with other sports without fencing-specific analyses. No restrictions were placed on publication date or language. Search strategy A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost on November 18, 2025. The search strategy intentionally used the broad terms “fencing,” “fencer,” and “fencers” in the title or abstract to maximize sensitivity while maintaining specificity for fencing-related literature. The search strings were as follows: PubMed: (“fencing”[Title/Abstract] OR “fencer”[Title/Abstract] OR “fencers”[Title/Abstract]); Scopus: TITLE-ABS (“fencing” OR “fencer” OR “fencers”); and EBSCOhost: TI fencing OR TI fencer OR TI fencers OR AB fencing OR AB fencer OR AB fencers. Pilot testing of alternative search approaches suggested this strategy captured the broadest and most relevant body of literature across databases. This approach was also informed by the authors’ familiarity with the fencing literature and was considered sufficient to identify the major body of eligible studies. However, it is possible that studies referring only to specific disciplines (e.g., foil or sabre) without explicit reference to fencing in the title or abstract may not have been captured, which represents a potential limitation. All records were exported and imported into Rayyan (Rayyan Systems Inc., 2025) for deduplication and screening, a platform developed to support efficient and reproducible study screening in evidence synthesis [ 23 ]. The initial search yielded 9,770 records. After removal of 4,180 duplicate records, 5,590 unique records remained for screening. Study selection Screening was conducted in a multi-stage process. Titles were first reviewed to exclude clearly irrelevant studies, followed by abstract screening. Full-text review was performed when eligibility could not be determined from the abstract alone. Full-text articles were sought for all potentially eligible studies. When full texts could not be obtained through institutional subscriptions, interlibrary loan, or direct library inquiry, studies were excluded. A total of 57 records were excluded due to inability to obtain the full text. Screening and study selection were conducted by a single reviewer using predefined eligibility criteria. Given the descriptive and mapping focus of scoping reviews, single-reviewer screening was deemed acceptable. For studies in which eligibility could not be determined based on title, abstract, or full-text review, an AI-assisted data extraction tool (Elicit; Ought, Inc., 2026) was used to facilitate clarification of key inclusion criteria: (1) whether fencers were included as study participants; (2) whether the study employed an experimental or quantitative observational design; and (3) for studies involving multiple sports, whether results for fencing athletes were reported separately. AI-assisted outputs were used solely to support identification of relevant content and did not make or replace inclusion or exclusion decisions. All outputs were manually reviewed and verified by the reviewer, and final eligibility determinations were made according to predefined criteria. Non-English language studies were screened and assessed using translated abstracts and full texts generated using an AI-assisted language model to support comprehension and inclusion, with translated outputs reviewed in context of the original article structure and used only to support screening and extraction. Data extraction Data were charted using a structured extraction framework developed a priori. Extracted variables included publication year, first author country, sport type, athlete type, number of fencing participants, fencer level, weapon discipline, sex of participants, primary research domain, study design, primary outcome, and key findings. To facilitate structured extraction across the large number of included studies (n = 445), an AI-assisted extraction platform was used with standardized categorical fields applied consistently across batches. Extracted data were manually reviewed, cross-checked against source manuscripts, and standardized prior to descriptive synthesis. To support consistency and accuracy, the same extraction framework and categorical definitions were applied across studies, and any uncertainties or discrepancies identified during review were resolved by the reviewer before final coding. This reviewer-led verification approach is consistent with emerging evidence suggesting Elicit may support semi-automated extraction workflows but benefits from human oversight to support accuracy and validity [ 24 ]. Data synthesis Findings were summarized using descriptive numerical analyses and presented in tabular and graphical formats. Frequency distributions and percentages were calculated for study design, research domain, participant characteristics, weapon discipline, sample size categories, and geographic distribution. Narrative synthesis was used to contextualize structural patterns across the literature. Consistent with scoping review methodology, no formal risk-of-bias assessment was performed. This study involved analysis of published literature and did not require institutional review board approval. Results Study selection The literature search identified 9,770 records across PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. After removal of 4,180 duplicate records, 5,590 unique records remained for screening. Following title and abstract review and full-text assessment, 57 studies were excluded due to inability to obtain the full text despite attempts through institutional access and interlibrary loan. A total of 445 studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the final synthesis. The study selection process is illustrated in Fig 1 . Fig 1. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram of study identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Open in a new tab Flow diagram illustrating the process of study identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. A total of 9,770 records were identified across PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. After removal of 4,180 duplicates, 5,590 records were screened. Following full-text assessment and application of eligibility criteria, 445 studies were included in the final synthesis. Characteristics of included studies Publication trends. Publication volume increased progressively over time ( Fig 2 ). Prior to 2000, relatively few studies were published annually, with most years yielding fewer than five publications. Output increased gradually in the early 2000s and accelerated markedly after 2015. Annual publication counts exceeded 20 studies per year after 2018 and peaked in the early 2020s, approaching 40 studies in a single year. The majority of included studies were published within the past decade. Fig 2. Annual number of included studies published per year. Open in a new tab Line graph depicting the number of included studies published per year. Publication volume increased progressively over time, with marked growth after 2015 and the highest annual counts observed in the early 2020s. Study design. Controlled laboratory experiments were the most frequently represented design (35.7%), followed by cross-sectional observational studies (30.3%) and field-based experimental or testing studies (12.1%) ( Table 1 ). Retrospective observational studies comprised 7.6% of included studies, prospective cohort studies 5.4%, randomized controlled trials 4.3%, and non-randomized interventions 2.5%. A small proportion of studies were categorized as other designs (1.6%) or involved multiple study designs (0.4%). Overall, laboratory-based and cross-sectional approaches accounted for the majority of the literature, whereas prospective and interventional designs were comparatively limited. Table 1. Distribution of study designs across included studies (n = 445). Study Design N (%) Controlled Laboratory Experiment 159 (35.7) Cross-Sectional Observational 135 (30.3) Field-Based Experiment/Testing 54 (12.1) Retrospective Observational 34 (7.6) Prospective Cohort 24 (5.4) Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) 19 (4.3) Non-Randomized Intervention 11 (2.5) Other 7 (1.6) Multiple Designs 2 (0.4) Open in a new tab Research domain. Performance and skill analysis was the dominant research domain, representing 41.1% of included studies ( Table 2 ). Physiology accounted for 15.7%, psychology 13.0%, and biomechanics 12.6%. Injury and epidemiology studies comprised 7.9% of the literature, while recovery, rehabilitation, and health-focused research represented 4.3%. Training load and fatigue studies were least represented at 1.6%. A small proportion of studies (2.9%) addressed overlapping domains, and 0.9% were categorized as Other. Together, performance, physiology, psychology, and biomechanics accounted for 82.4% of the literature, highlighting concentration within performance-oriented domains. Table 2. Distribution of research domains across included studies (n = 445). Research Domain N (%) Performance/Skill Analysis 183 (41.1) Physiology 70 (15.7) Psychology 58 (13.0) Biomechanics 56 (12.6) Injury/Epidemiology 35 (7.9) Recovery/Rehab/Health 19 (4.3) Overlapping Domains 13 (2.9) Training Load/Fatigue 7 (1.6) Other 4 (0.9) Open in a new tab Participant characteristics Most studies examined able-bodied athletes (95.5%), whereas wheelchair athletes accounted for 3.4% of included studies and 0.9% included both populations ( Table 3 ). Athlete type was unspecified in 0.2% of studies. With respect to sex, 44.6% of studies included both male and female participants, 20.9% included males only, and 10.3% included females only. Sex was not specified in 24.3% of studies. Senior or elite fencers were the most frequently studied population (54.4%). Mixed-level cohorts accounted for 12.8%, while youth and collegiate populations comprised 8.5% and 8.3% of studies, respectively. Junior fencers represented 4.0% of studies, and club-level athletes accounted for 2.7%. Veteran fencers were rarely studied (0.2%), and 9.0% of studies did not specify competition level. Weapon discipline reporting remained inconsistent. Although 22.0% of studies examined multiple weapons, 16.9% focused on épée and 12.4% on foil. Sabre accounted for 3.8% of studies, while 44.9% of studies did not specify weapon discipline. Table 3. Participant characteristics across included studies (N = 445). N (%) Sex of Participants Both 198 (44.6) Not specified 108 (24.3) Males only 93 (20.9) Females only 46 (10.3) Athlete Type Able-bodied 425 (95.5) Wheelchair 15 (3.4) Both 4 (0.9) Not specified 1 (0.2) Weapon Studied Not specified 200 (44.9) Multiple 98 (22.0) Épée 75 (16.9) Foil 55 (12.4) Sabre 17 (3.8) Fencer Level Senior Elite 242 (54.4) Mixed levels 57 (12.8) Not Specified 40 (9.0) Youth 38 (8.5) Collegiate 37 (8.3) Junior 18 (4.0) Club 12 (2.7) Veteran 1 (0.2) Open in a new tab Sample size. Sample sizes were generally small ( Fig 3 ). Most studies included fewer than 50 participants, with the 10–19 and 20–49 participant ranges being most common. A substantial proportion of studies included fewer than 10 athletes. Only a small minority of studies enrolled 100 or more participants. Fig 3. Distribution of fencing participant sample sizes across included studies. Open in a new tab Bar chart showing the distribution of sample sizes among included studies (n = 445), grouped into predefined participant ranges (<10, 10–19, 20–49, 50–99, 100–199, and ≥200 participants). Most studies included fewer than 50 fencing participants. Geographic distribution Research output was geographically concentrated in Europe and North America ( Table 4 ). Poland contributed the largest proportion of publications (11.2%), followed by the United States (8.3%), France (8.1%), Italy (6.7%), and the United Kingdom (6.3%). East Asian countries including China, Japan, and South Korea were also represented. Contributions from Africa and South America were comparatively limited, and many countries contributed only one or two publications. Table 4. Geographic distribution of included studies by first author country (top 10). Country N (%) Poland 50 (11.2) United States 37 (8.3) France 36 (8.1) Italy 30 (6.7) United Kingdom 28 (6.3) Spain 25 (5.6) China 19 (4.3) Japan 16 (3.6) Ukraine 16 (3.6) South Korea 16 (3.6) Open in a new tab Discussion Principal findings This scoping review synthesized 445 experimental and quantitative observational studies involving fencing athletes. Publication volume has increased substantially over the past decade, with marked acceleration after 2015. Despite this growth, the literature demonstrates consistent structural patterns: predominance of laboratory-based and cross-sectional designs, concentration within performance and physiology domains, frequent small sample sizes, limited representation of wheelchair athletes, and geographic clustering within Europe and North America. Together, these findings suggest that while fencing research has expanded in quantity, its methodological structure and thematic distribution remain uneven. Collectively, these findings suggest a structural imbalance within fencing research characterized by: 1) methodological concentration in laboratory and cross-sectional designs; 2) thematic concentration in performance-oriented domains, and 3) limited representation of para-athletes, longitudinal cohorts, and rehabilitation-focused inquiry. This pattern appears to reflect a greater emphasis within the literature on performance characterization than athlete health surveillance and intervention evaluation. While such emphasis has advanced understanding of fencing-specific motor and perceptual demands, it may also constrain the translation of findings into long-term athlete development, injury prevention, and inclusive practice frameworks. Methodological profile of the field Controlled laboratory experiments and cross-sectional observational studies comprised the majority of included research, whereas prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were comparatively uncommon. This pattern suggests that fencing research has been structured primarily around performance testing and biomechanical or physiological assessment rather than longitudinal surveillance or intervention-based investigation. Fencing participation often spans from early childhood into later adulthood, underscoring the importance of longitudinal designs capable of capturing developmental trajectories, cumulative training exposures, injury patterns, and age-related performance changes. The relative scarcity of prospective cohort studies limits the ability to establish temporal relationships between training exposure and outcomes such as overuse injury, performance adaptation, or burnout. Without large-scale surveillance systems, incidence rates and modifiable risk factors remain difficult to define. Collaborative multi-center studies and federation-level data collection initiatives may therefore represent important priorities for advancing long-term athlete health research in fencing. Similarly, the limited number of randomized or controlled intervention studies constrains the field’s ability to move beyond descriptive findings toward evidence-based practice. Intervention trials are necessary to evaluate strategies aimed at reducing injury risk, optimizing training load, improving rehabilitation protocols, and enhancing performance. In their absence, recommendations may rely primarily on cross-sectional associations or laboratory findings rather than causal evidence. The predominance of small sample sizes likely reflects the logistical challenges inherent in recruiting fencing athletes, particularly at senior and elite levels. Although fencing participation is expanding in several countries, the overall athlete pool remains relatively small compared with larger team sports, and elite fencers are often concentrated within a limited number of centralized training environments. This structural reality constrains recruitment capacity for single-site investigations. Nevertheless, small samples and short-duration designs reduce statistical power and may limit generalizability across weapon disciplines, age groups, and competition levels. They also restrict subgroup analyses, including sex-specific and developmental comparisons, which are particularly relevant in a sport characterized by early specialization and prolonged competitive careers. Multi-centre collaboration and federation-level research partnerships may therefore represent important strategies for strengthening statistical robustness while maintaining ecological validity. Thematic concentration and research gaps Performance and skill analysis constituted the largest research domain, representing over 40% of the literature. In contrast, injury and epidemiology studies accounted for less than 10%, and recovery or rehabilitation-focused research represented fewer than 5%. Training load and fatigue research was particularly limited. The near absence of structured training load and fatigue monitoring research is particularly notable given fencing’s intermittent high-intensity profile and asymmetrical mechanical demands. Fencing involves repetitive unilateral loading, high-intensity lunging mechanics, and asymmetrical lower extremity demands, all of which have been associated with lower limb injury patterns in prior studies [ 11 , 19 – 22 , 25 – 29 ]. Comparatively fewer investigations have examined upper extremity injuries, despite the substantial technical demands placed on the weapon arm and shoulder complex [ 24 , 30 – 34 ]. The limited emphasis on comprehensive and longitudinal injury surveillance may result in greater capture of acute injuries than overuse conditions, despite the importance of both in fencing. Greater investment in prospective injury tracking, load monitoring, and rehabilitation-focused research may therefore be necessary to better characterize risk patterns and inform prevention strategies that support long-term athlete participation. Sex representation and reporting practices also warrant careful consideration. Nearly one quarter of studies did not specify participant sex, and fewer than 11% included female-only cohorts. Although approximately half of studies included both male and female participants, inconsistent reporting limits meaningful sex-specific interpretation. This limitation is particularly consequential given established biological and physiological differences between females and males including variations in body composition, hormonal milieu, and neuromuscular characteristics that may influence injury patterns, training adaptation, and recovery trajectories [ 35 , 36 ]. Moreover, international surveillance data indicate that injury incidence and vulnerability may differ by sex in fencing populations [ 32 , 37 ] further underscoring the importance of sex-disaggregated analysis. Female fencers represent a substantial and growing proportion of the sport; approximately 40% of USA Fencing membership identifies as female, comparable to participation levels within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (~43%) [ 38 ]. Despite this representation, sex-specific research in fencing remains limited. Addressing these differences is critical not only for sport-specific performance and injury prevention but also for the broader long-term health of female athletes. The dominance of performance and skill analysis likely reflects several structural features of fencing sport science. As an Olympic and Paralympic discipline, fencing research is often embedded within high-performance environments where funding, institutional support, and practitioner interest may emphasize competitive optimization. Performance variables such as reaction time, movement velocity, perceptual-cognitive processing, and tactical decision-making are also well suited to controlled laboratory paradigms, enabling relatively efficient data collection within small cohorts. In contrast, injury surveillance, longitudinal load monitoring, and rehabilitation research require sustained multi-site collaboration, long-term follow-up, and integration with medical infrastructures. Consequently, methodological feasibility and performance-oriented funding structures may have contributed to shaping the thematic distribution of the literature. Representation and inclusivity Wheelchair fencing was markedly underrepresented in the included literature, comprising only a small fraction of studies. This imbalance is notable given its longstanding status as a Paralympic discipline and its global reach. Wheelchair fencing has been contested at every Paralympic Games since its debut in Rome in 1960 and has expanded substantially in scope and participation [ 7 ]. Despite this history, systematic research in wheelchair fencing remains very limited, with few studies examining the physical, physiological, and technical characteristics of para-athletes [ 39 ]. This underrepresentation mirrors broader disparities in Paralympic sport research and highlights the need for equitable scientific investment. Considering the unique postural, neuromuscular, and tactical demands of wheelchair fencing, greater research investment is needed to support evidence-based training, injury prevention, rehabilitation, and performance development for para-athletes. The literature was also disproportionately focused on senior or elite fencers, despite these athletes representing only a small fraction of the overall fencing population. While elite cohorts provide valuable insight into high-performance demands, this emphasis may limit generalizability to youth, collegiate, recreational, and veteran athletes who comprise the majority of participants globally. Broader inclusion of non-elite populations is necessary to better characterize developmental trajectories, injury patterns, and long-term participation across the full spectrum of fencing engagement. Similarly, weapon discipline was not specified in nearly half of included studies, limiting discipline-specific interpretation. Relatively few investigations have directly compared physiological or injury differences across épée, foil, and sabre, despite evidence that meaningful distinctions exist. Injury risk appears to vary by weapon, with international data suggesting differences in overall injury incidence and sex-specific vulnerability across disciplines [ 33 – 37 ]. Mechanisms of injury also differ, with a substantial proportion arising from intrinsic, non-contact efforts [ 37 ] and sabre presenting unique risk patterns that have historically prompted equipment standard modifications [ 31 ]. These variations likely reflect distinct tactical and biomechanical demands across weapons. Sabre is characterized by rapid, explosive exchanges, whereas épée involves longer, more sustained tactical actions, with foil occupying an intermediate profile shaped by right-of-way conventions and structured engagement patterns [ 12 , 40 ]. Such temporal and tactical distinctions likely translate into different physiological demands, neuromuscular loading profiles, and injury risk patterns. Given these discipline-specific characteristics, failure to consistently report or stratify by weapon may obscure meaningful differences in performance outcomes, adaptation, and injury risk. Improved reporting practices and weapon-specific analyses would enhance comparability across studies and strengthen the applicability of findings to training, prevention, and rehabilitation strategies. Geographically, research output was concentrated in European nations and select North American and East Asian countries. While this distribution reflects established fencing infrastructures and sport science investment, limited representation from other regions may constrain generalizability to global fencing populations. National federation structures, centralized coaching models, and differences in access to sport science and medical resources may influence athlete development pathways, training load management, and rehabilitation practices. Broader geographic diversity in research participation would strengthen external validity and enhance understanding of contextual influences on athlete health and performance. Implications for future research This structural mapping suggests several priorities for future investigation. Increased use of prospective cohort designs and randomized interventions may strengthen causal inference and translational relevance. Expanded injury surveillance and rehabilitation-focused research may better support long-term athlete health. Improved reporting of sex, weapon discipline, and competition level would enhance transparency and comparability. Finally, greater inclusion of wheelchair fencing and broader international collaboration may promote equity and global relevance within the field. Research gaps and strategic priorities The structural imbalances identified in this review suggest several strategic priorities for advancing fencing sport science. These gaps are methodological, thematic, and representational in nature, and collectively shape the field’s translational capacity. To consolidate these priorities, key research gaps and recommended directions are summarized in Table 5 . Table 5. Key research gaps and priority directions for fencing sport science. Domain Identified Gap Why It Matters Priority Research Direction Study Design Limited prospective cohort studies; few randomized or controlled interventions Restricts causal inference, understanding of injury incidence, training adaptation, and developmental trajectories Establish multi-center longitudinal surveillance systems and conduct pragmatic or cluster-based intervention trials Training Load & Fatigue Minimal structured load monitoring research Inhibits understanding of load–injury and load–performance relationships Develop fencing-specific load metrics, monitoring tools, and periodization models Injury & Rehabilitation Limited prospective injury tracking; scarce rehabilitation-focused research Constrains injury prevention strategies and return-to-play guidance Integrate sport science and medical data to support injury risk modelling and rehabilitation protocol evaluation Sex Representation Inconsistent sex reporting; few female-only cohorts Limits sex-specific interpretation of injury patterns, adaptation, and performance Mandate sex-disaggregated analyses and expand female-focused research initiatives Weapon Discipline Nearly half of studies do not specify weapon discipline Obscures discipline-specific physiological and biomechanical demands Standardize weapon reporting and conduct comparative weapon-specific investigations Para Sport Wheelchair fencing markedly underrepresented Limits equitable evidence-based training, injury prevention, and rehabilitation support Develop para-specific biomechanical, physiological, and performance research programs Population Scope Heavy emphasis on elite athletes Limits generalizability to youth, recreational, collegiate, and veteran fencers Expand research across developmental stages and broader participation levels Geographic Representation Concentration of research in Europe and North America Limits global applicability and contextual understanding Foster international and federation-level research collaborations Reporting Standards Inconsistent reporting of sex, weapon discipline, and competition level Reduces reproducibility, comparability, and synthesis capacity Develop fencing-specific reporting recommendations aligned with sport science best practices Interdisciplinary Integration Domains frequently studied in isolation Reduces holistic understanding of performance, health, and long-term development Promote integrated multi-domain research frameworks combining biomechanics, physiology, psychology, and medical surveillance Open in a new tab Collectively, these priorities suggest that the next phase of fencing research should move toward greater methodological diversity, interdisciplinary integration, and collaborative scale. Addressing these gaps may benefit from coordinated partnerships between academic institutions, national federations, high-performance programs, and sports medicine infrastructures. Such collaboration may enable larger sample sizes, longitudinal surveillance systems, and intervention-based research capable of informing evidence-based practice across developmental stages and competition levels. Strengths and limitations This review synthesized a large body of experimental and quantitative observational research involving fencing athletes using a comprehensive multi-database search strategy without restriction on publication date or language. Screening and reporting were conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and data were extracted using a structured framework developed a priori. Inclusion of non-English studies enhances the global scope of the review and reduces language bias. The large number of included studies (n = 445) provides a broad structural overview of the field across domains, methodologies, and geographic regions. Several limitations should be acknowledged. Screening and study selection were conducted by a single reviewer, and independent dual screening was not performed. This may have introduced the possibility of missed studies or inconsistent application of eligibility criteria. However, consistent with the descriptive and mapping objectives of scoping review methodology, a single-reviewer approach was deemed acceptable for this review. AI-assisted tools were used to support screening and data extraction by identifying relevant manuscript sections; however, final eligibility decisions and categorizations were determined by the reviewer. As a scoping review, this study did not assess methodological quality or risk of bias within individual studies. Additionally, the substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, and domains limited synthesis to descriptive mapping rather than quantitative aggregation or meta-analysis. Conclusions Fencing research has expanded substantially over the past decade, with growing publication volume and increasing international contribution. However, the current evidence base remains structurally concentrated within laboratory-based and cross-sectional designs and thematically centered on performance and physiological domains. Prospective cohort studies, randomized interventions, injury surveillance, rehabilitation research, and inclusive representation of wheelchair athletes remain comparatively limited. Inconsistent reporting of key variables— including sex, weapon discipline, and competition level—further constrains interpretability and comparability across studies. Greater methodological diversity, improved reporting practices, expanded longitudinal surveillance, and broader geographic and para-athlete inclusion may strengthen the translational relevance and global applicability of fencing research. By systematically mapping the methodological and thematic structure of the field, this review provides a foundation for targeted advancement of fencing sport science and supports more balanced development of research priorities moving forward. Supporting information S1 Checklist. PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Completed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for the scoping review. (DOCX) pone.0350383.s001.docx (55.7KB, docx) Data Availability The full data set is available at University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (UHRA) via DOI 10.18745/ds.00026640 . Funding Statement The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. References 1. Błażkiewicz M, Borysiuk Z, Gzik M. Determination of loading in the lower limb joints during step-forward lunge in fencing. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20(4):3–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Balkó Š, Borysiuk Z, Šimonek J. The influence of different performance level of fencers on simple and choice reaction time. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2016;18(4):391–400. doi: 10.5007/1980-0037.2016v18n4p391 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Balkó Š, Heidler J, Jelínek M. Relationship between the armed arm’s motor response and muscle activation time during the lunge in fencers of varied ability. JHSE. 2018;13(1):88–97. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2018.131.06 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Borysiuk Z. Reações psicomotoras dependentes do tipo de estímulo na esgrima. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2008;10(3):223. doi: 10.5007/1980-0037.2008v10n3p223 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Akpinar S, Beyaz O. Perceptual and motor performances between fencers and non-fencers. SMJ. 2018;16(3):3–7. doi: 10.26773/smj.181001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Au Eong JTW, Sebastin SJ. Trigger finger associated with fencing in an adolescent: a case report. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2021;26(3):463–6. doi: 10.1142/S2424835521720176 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. National Paralympic Heritage Trust. Wheelchair fencing [Internet]; 2017. [cited 2026 Feb 26]. Available from: https://www.paralympicheritage.org.uk/wheelchair-fencing 8. Iglesias X, Rodríguez FA, Tarragó R, Bottoms L, Vallejo L, Rodríguez-Zamora L, et al. Physiological demands of standing and wheelchair fencing in able-bodied fencers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019;59(4):569–74. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08413-X [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Fédération Internationale d’Escrime. Structure [Internet]. [cited 2026 Feb 26]. Available from: http://fie.org/fie/structure 10. British Fencing. About para fencing [Internet]. [cited 2026 Feb 26]. Available from: https://www.britishfencing.com/about-para-fencing/ 11. Harmer PA. Incidence and characteristics of time-loss injuries in competitive fencing: a prospective, 5-year study of national competitions. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(2):137–42. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318161548d [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Chen TL-W, Wong DW-C, Wang Y, Ren S, Yan F, Zhang M. Biomechanics of fencing sport: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171578 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Akbaş A, Marszałek W, Brachman A, Juras G. Influence of target width and distance on postural adjustments in a fencing lunge. J Hum Kinet. 2023;87:35–45. doi: 10.5114/jhk/161572 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Greenhalgh A, Bottoms L, Sinclair J. Influence of surface on impact shock experienced during a fencing lunge. J Appl Biomech. 2013;29(4):463–7. doi: 10.1123/jab.29.4.463 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Allerdissen M, Güldenpenning I, Schack T, Bläsing B. Recognizing fencing attacks from auditory and visual information: a comparison between expert fencers and novices. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2017;31:123–30. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.04.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Milia R, Roberto S, Pinna M, Palazzolo G, Sanna I, Omeri M, et al. Physiological responses and energy expenditure during competitive fencing. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39(3):324–8. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2013-0221 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Borysiuk Z. Complex evaluation of fencers’ predisposition in three stages of sport development. Biol Sport. 2006;23(3):227–39. [ Google Scholar ] 18. Bottoms L, Sinclair J, Rome P, Gregory K, Price M. Development of a lab based epee fencing protocol. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2013;13(1):11–22. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Cross ER, Lynch SM, Miller PE, Hunt DL, Stein CJ. Injury patterns in fencing athletes - a retrospective review. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2024;19(9):1108–15. doi: 10.26603/001c.122322 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Stanicki B, Criscione JX, Shaari AL, Thompson K, Galdi B. An analysis of fencing injuries in the United States: a 10-year database review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2025;13(4):23259671251334774. doi: 10.1177/23259671251334774 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Thompson K, Chang G, Alaia M, Jazrawi L, Gonzalez-Lomas G. Lower extremity injuries in U.S. national fencing team members and U.S. fencing Olympians. Phys Sportsmed. 2022;50(3):212–7. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1895693 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Park KJ, Brian Byung S. Injuries in elite Korean fencers: an epidemiological study. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(4):220–5. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096754 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Hilkenmeier F, Pelzer M, Stierle C, Fink-Lamotte J. Evaluating the AI tool “Elicit” as a semi-automated second reviewer for data extraction in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2025;0(0):1–17. doi: 10.1177/08944393251404052 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Gondouin H, Zabotto N, Allado E, Hily O, Temperelli M, Le Garrec S, et al. Fencing injuries in French elite fencers: a retrospective analysis from 2016 to 2023. Front Sports Act Living. 2025;7:1535818. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1535818 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Swatowska MM, Akbas A, Juras G. Injuries in high-performance fencers: a review. J Hum Kinet. 2022;82:5–16.36196339 [ Google Scholar ] 27. Giombini A, Dragoni S, Di Cesare A, Di Cesare M, Del Buono A, Maffulli N. Asymptomatic Achilles, patellar, and quadriceps tendinopathy: a longitudinal clinical and ultrasonographic study in elite fencers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(3):311–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01400.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Giombini A. Clinical and echographic characteristics of knee extensor tendons and the Achilles tendon in elite fencers: a prospective observational study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2012;2(3):191–6. [ Google Scholar ] 29. Chung WM, Yeung S, Wong AYL, Lam IF, Tse PTF, Daswani D, et al. Musculoskeletal injuries in elite able-bodied and wheelchair foil fencers--a pilot study. Clin J Sport Med. 2012;22(3):278–80. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31824a577e [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Xiong G, Zheng W, Guo Z. New evidence exploring the mechanism of metacarpal joint locking of the thumb. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2023;48(7):669–71. doi: 10.1177/17531934231166866 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Harmer PA. Preventing penetrating hand injuries in sabre fencing: an application and critique of the van Mechelen model by the Fédération Internationale d’Escrime. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(17):1138–43. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094823 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Martín-Ruiz J, Alarcón-Jiménez J, de Bernardo N, Tamarit-Grancha I, Iglesias X, Ruiz-Sanchis L. Muscle changes during direct attack under different conditions in elite wheelchair fencing. Sports (Basel). 2024;12(7):188. doi: 10.3390/sports12070188 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Chung J-W, Lim B-O, Cho J-H, Lee K-H. Prevalence of sports injuries in Korean fencers aged 14-40 years. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020;60(10):1371–6. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.10900-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Chang C-L, Lin F-T, Li K-W, Jou Y-T, Huang C-D. A study of optimal handle shape and muscle strength distribution on lower arm when holding a foil. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;108(2):524–30. doi: 10.2466/PMS.108.2.524-530 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Ansdell P, Thomas K, Hicks KM, Hunter SK, Howatson G, Goodall S. Physiological sex differences affect the integrative response to exercise: acute and chronic implications. Exp Physiol. 2020;105(12):2007–21. doi: 10.1113/EP088548 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Davis HC, Hackney AC. The hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis and oral contraceptives: regulation and function. In: Hackney AC, editor. Sex hormones, exercise and women: scientific and clinical aspects. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 1–17. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44558-8_1 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Harmer PA. Epidemiology of time-loss injuries in international fencing: a prospective, 5-year analysis of Fédération Internationale d’Escrime competitions. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(7):442–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100002 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. NCAA. A look at trends for women in college sports [Internet]; 2023. [cited 2024 Sep 25]. Available from: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/3/1/media-center-a-look-at-trends-for-women-in-college-sports.aspx 39. Leale I, Petrigna L, Giustino V, Pillitteri G, Barbieri RA, Palma A, et al. A standard operating procedure for the physical performance analysis of wheelchair fencer: a scoping review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2023;63(11):1175–81. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.23.14998-X [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Tarragó R, Iglesias X, Michavila JJ, Chaverri D, Ruiz-Sanchis L. Analysis of patterns in elite épée bouts. Cuad Psicol Deporte. 2015;15(3):25–34. [ Google Scholar ] PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350383.r001 Decision Letter 0 Yih-Kuen Jan Author information Copyright and License information Roles Yih-Kuen Jan : Academic Editor © 2026 Yih-Kuen Jan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 19 Apr 2026 -->PONE-D-26-11865-->-->Experimental and Quantitative Observational Research in Fencing and Wheelchair Fencing: A Scoping Review-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Bottoms, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:--> A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Yih-Kuen Jan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions --> Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ********** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a scoping review of experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing. The topic is timely and relevant, and the review offers a useful overview of publication trends, study designs, research domains, participant characteristics, and geographic distribution. The inclusion of 445 studies suggests substantial effort, and the manuscript is generally well written and logically structured. The broad conclusion that the literature has expanded but remains uneven in methodology and thematic coverage is reasonable and supported by the descriptive results. However, several points should be addressed to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the review. First, the manuscript would benefit from greater methodological detail regarding study selection and data extraction. Screening and study selection were conducted by a single reviewer, which should be acknowledged more clearly as a limitation. While this may be acceptable in some scoping review contexts, it still raises the possibility of missed studies or inconsistent application of eligibility criteria. Second, the use of AI-assisted tools in screening, extraction, and translation should be described in more detail. The current wording is helpful, but the manuscript should clarify exactly how these tools were used, how their outputs were verified, and what safeguards were in place to ensure consistency and accuracy. This is especially important because these tools were involved in several stages of the review process. Third, the search strategy appears relatively narrow as currently described. The manuscript states that the search used the terms “fencing,” “fencer,” or “fencers” in the title or abstract across PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. The authors should provide the full search strings for each database and explain why this strategy was considered sufficiently sensitive. It would also be helpful to discuss whether potentially relevant studies using terms such as foil, sabre, or wheelchair fencing without “fencing” in the title/abstract may have been missed. Fourth, the data availability statement should be improved. Because this review generated a substantial extracted dataset across 445 studies, the underlying extraction sheet and coding framework should ideally be made available in a public repository or as supporting information, in line with PLOS ONE data availability expectations. The current statement that data will be available on acceptance is not fully sufficient as written. Fifth, I noticed what appears to be a presentation error in the figure captions. The captions/descriptions for Figures 2 and 3 seem to be reversed: the text under Figure 2 describes sample size distribution, while the text under Figure 3 describes annual publication counts. Please check and correct this. I also encourage the authors to slightly moderate some of the wording in the Discussion. For example, the “Structural Imbalance Model” is an interesting interpretive summary, but it may be better presented as a conceptual interpretation of the mapped literature rather than as a formal model. Similarly, some claims about what the field has “prioritized” could be framed more cautiously. Overall, this is a useful manuscript with clear potential value to the field. With revision to improve transparency, reproducibility, and reporting detail, it would be considerably strengthened. Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a scoping review aiming to characterize the methodological structure and thematic distribution of experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing. The topic is relevant and timely, given the growing interest in niche sports science domains and the clear lack of synthesis in fencing research. The inclusion of 445 studies and adherence to PRISMA-ScR guidelines are notable strengths. However, several reporting issues can be fixed to make it better. The author mentioned usage of AI tool in data screening and extraction, but details about the AI are insufficient and lead to less transparency and reproducibility. For example, are there any validity test done on the AI tool and what prompt was given to this tool to minimize the bias created by AI? Are there any criteria used to ensure accuracy? Line 151: missing period. For result section the depth of data synthesis and analysis are very limited. Most analysis was descriptive (frequencies and percentages). Deeper insight with some exploration of relationships between variables is recommended (e.g., study design × domain, geography × design). The manuscript has clear potential and addresses an underexplored area. However, methodological transparency and analytical depth need to be improved before it is suitable for publication. ********** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. PLoS One. 2026 Jun 1;21(6):e0350383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350383.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Article notes Copyright and License information Collection date 2026. PMC Copyright notice 21 Apr 2026 We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful critique of our manuscript and believe their comments have made the manuscript stronger and more clinically meaningful. All changes have been made in text with lines and page numbers included below. Editor Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. RESPONSE: Thank you for this note. We have reviewed the manuscript and associated submission files to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE style requirements, including formatting and file naming conventions, and have revised the submission materials accordingly. Comment 2: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this out. Any reference to funding has been removed from the manuscript. The funding statement online is correct and can stay as is. The cover letter also reflects that no funding was received. Comment 3: When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. RESPONSE: The data is now available online and can be found here: https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/id/eprint/26640/ Reviewer 1 Comment 1: First, the manuscript would benefit from greater methodological detail regarding study selection and data extraction. Screening and study selection were conducted by a single reviewer, which should be acknowledged more clearly as a limitation. While this may be acceptable in some scoping review contexts, it still raises the possibility of missed studies or inconsistent application of eligibility criteria. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, we revised the Methods and Limitations sections to address both methodological transparency and acknowledgment of limitations. Specifically, we expanded the Study Selection and Data Extraction sections to provide additional detail regarding screening procedures, eligibility clarification, the use and verification of AI-assisted tools, and safeguards used to support consistency and accuracy during extraction and coding. (Please see lines 117-130 and 143-152) We also more explicitly acknowledge single-reviewer screening as a limitation and note the potential for missed studies or inconsistent application of eligibility criteria. While a single-reviewer approach was considered acceptable given the descriptive and mapping objectives of scoping review methodology, we agree that clearer acknowledgment of this limitation strengthens the manuscript. (Please see lines 441-444) Comment 2: Second, the use of AI-assisted tools in screening, extraction, and translation should be described in more detail. The current wording is helpful, but the manuscript should clarify exactly how these tools were used, how their outputs were verified, and what safeguards were in place to ensure consistency and accuracy. This is especially important because these tools were involved in several stages of the review process. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, we substantially expanded the Methods section to provide additional detail regarding the role of AI-assisted tools in screening, extraction, and translation, including how these tools were used, how outputs were verified, and what safeguards were in place to support consistency and accuracy. Specifically, we clarify that AI-assisted tools were used only to support identification and organization of relevant information and did not make autonomous inclusion, exclusion, or coding decisions. We added detail regarding the predefined criteria used when AI assistance was applied, including eligibility clarification related to participant inclusion, study design, and fencing-specific reporting in multi-sport studies. We also expanded the description of reviewer-led safeguards, including manual review and verification of all AI-assisted outputs, cross-checking against source manuscripts, use of standardized extraction fields and categorical definitions across studies, and resolution of uncertainties or discrepancies prior to final coding. In addition, we added citations supporting the screening platform used in this review (Rayyan; Ouzzani et al.) and emerging evidence supporting human oversight in Elicit-assisted extraction workflows (Hilkenmeier et al., 2025). We believe these revisions substantially improve transparency, reproducibility, and justification of the AI-assisted methods used in this review. (Please see lines 117-130 and 143-152). Comment 3: Third, the search strategy appears relatively narrow as currently described. The manuscript states that the search used the terms “fencing,” “fencer,” or “fencers” in the title or abstract across PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. The authors should provide the full search strings for each database and explain why this strategy was considered sufficiently sensitive. It would also be helpful to discuss whether potentially relevant studies using terms such as foil, sabre, or wheelchair fencing without “fencing” in the title/abstract may have been missed. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, we revised the Search Strategy section to provide the full search strings used for PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost and to clarify the rationale for the search approach. Specifically, the terms “fencing,” “fencer,” and “fencers” were intentionally selected as broad search terms to maximize sensitivity while maintaining specificity for fencing-related literature. We added that pilot testing of alternative search approaches suggested this strategy captured the broadest and most relevant body of literature across databases, and that this approach was further informed by the authors’ familiarity with the fencing literature. We also now acknowledge as a potential limitation that studies referring only to specific disciplines (e.g., foil or sabre) without explicit reference to fencing in the title or abstract may theoretically have been missed. We believe these revisions strengthen transparency, reproducibility, and justification of the search strategy. (Please see lines 117-130) Comment 4: Fourth, the data availability statement should be improved. Because this review generated a substantial extracted dataset across 445 studies, the underlying extraction sheet and coding framework should ideally be made available in a public repository or as supporting information, in line with PLOS ONE data availability expectations. The current statement that data will be available on acceptance is not fully sufficient as written. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the extracted dataset represents an important output of this scoping review. The full data extraction sheet has now been made publicly available via the following doi: 10.18745/ds.00026640. The dataset includes clearly labelled variables, and a corresponding README file provides detailed descriptions of all variables and coding categories to support transparency and reuse. The Data Availability Statement has been updated accordingly. Comment 5: Fifth, I noticed what appears to be a presentation error in the figure captions. The captions/descriptions for Figures 2 and 3 seem to be reversed: the text under Figure 2 describes sample size distribution, while the text under Figure 3 describes annual publication counts. Please check and correct this. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for identifying this presentation error. The captions for Figures 2 and 3 were inadvertently reversed in the original submission. This has been corrected in the revised manuscript so that Figure 2 now corresponds to annual publication counts and Figure 3 corresponds to sample size distribution. Comment 6: I also encourage the authors to slightly moderate some of the wording in the Discussion. For example, the “Structural Imbalance Model” is an interesting interpretive summary, but it may be better presented as a conceptual interpretation of the mapped literature rather than as a formal model. Similarly, some claims about what the field has “prioritized” could be framed more cautiously. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. In response, we removed the “Structural Imbalance Model” heading and revised the text to present this as an interpretive conceptual summary within the Principal Findings section rather than as a formal model. We also moderated wording throughout the Discussion to frame statements more cautiously, including revising language suggesting the field has “prioritized” certain areas and softening related phrasing regarding emphasis, funding structures, and future research priorities. We believe these revisions improve precision and avoid overstatement while preserving the intended interpretation of the mapped literature. (Please see lines 255, 258-259, 342, 349, and 404.) Reviewer 2 Comment 1: The author mentioned usage of AI tool in data screening and extraction, but details about the AI are insufficient and lead to less transparency and reproducibility. For example, are there any validity test done on the AI tool and what prompt was given to this tool to minimize the bias created by AI? Are there any criteria used to ensure accuracy? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, we substantially expanded the Methods section to provide additional detail regarding the role of AI-assisted tools in screening, extraction, and translation, including how these tools were used, how outputs were verified, and what safeguards were in place to support consistency and accuracy. Specifically, we clarify that AI-assisted tools were used only to support identification and organization of relevant information and did not make autonomous inclusion, exclusion, or coding decisions. We added detail regarding the predefined criteria used when AI assistance was applied, including eligibility clarification related to participant inclusion, study design, and fencing-specific reporting in multi-sport studies, as well as standardized extraction fields and categorical definitions used to support consistency across studies. We also expanded the description of reviewer-led safeguards, including manual review and verification of all AI-assisted outputs, cross-checking against source manuscripts, and resolution of uncertainties or discrepancies prior to final coding. Formal validity testing of the AI tool was not performed, and we have not presented it as such; rather, accuracy was supported through these reviewer-led verification procedures. We also added citations to recent emerging evidence supporting the use of human oversight in Elicit-assisted extraction workflows (Hilkenmeier et al., 2025) and to the screening platform used in this review (Rayyan; Ouzzani et al.). With respect to prompts, AI assistance in this review was applied through predefined eligibility criteria and standardized extraction fields, which are now described in greater detail in the revised Methods, rather than through prompt-based optimization intended to tune outputs. We believe these revisions substantially improve transparency, reproducibility, and justification of the AI-assisted methods used in this review. (Please see lines 117-130 and 143-152) Comment 2: Line 151: missing period. RESPONSE: Thank you for noting this, the period has been added (please see line 173). Comment 3: For result section the depth of data synthesis and analysis are very limited. Most analysis was descriptive (frequencies and percentages). Deeper insight with some exploration of relationships between variables is recommended (e.g., study design × domain, geography × design). RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. Consistent with scoping review methodology, the analysis in this study was intentionally focused on descriptive mapping of the structure, characteristics, and distribution of the literature rather than inferential or exploratory analyses of relationships between study characteristics. The objective of the review was to characterize the field rather than test associations between variables. This approach is aligned with PRISMA-ScR guidance, which describes scoping reviews as intended to map evidence, identify key concepts and knowledge gaps, and summarize charted data, rather than require inferential analyses of associations (Tricco et al., 2018 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850. Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer_Responses.docx pone.0350383.s003.docx (21KB, docx) PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350383.r003 Decision Letter 1 Yih-Kuen Jan Author information Copyright and License information Roles Yih-Kuen Jan : Academic Editor © 2026 Yih-Kuen Jan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 13 May 2026 Experimental and Quantitative Observational Research in Fencing and Wheelchair Fencing: A Scoping Review PONE-D-26-11865R1 Dear Dr. Bottoms, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Yih-Kuen Jan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions --> Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ********** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors addressed the comments made during the first review. The article focuses on descriptive mapping of literatures regarding fencing. ********** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350383.r004 Acceptance letter Yih-Kuen Jan Author information Copyright and License information Roles Yih-Kuen Jan : Academic Editor © 2026 Yih-Kuen Jan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PONE-D-26-11865R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Bottoms, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing . If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Yih-Kuen Jan Academic Editor PLOS One Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials S1 Checklist. PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Completed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for the scoping review. (DOCX) pone.0350383.s001.docx (55.7KB, docx) Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer_Responses.docx pone.0350383.s003.docx (21KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The full data set is available at University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (UHRA) via DOI 10.18745/ds.00026640 . Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (561.2 KB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• School Active Shooter Drills and Other School Security Measures: Developmental Contexts#1702
• A Comparative Evaluation of AI Agent Security Guardrails#141441
• Tactical Frivolity#209901
• Mediation Training and Conflict Resolution: A Statistical Case Study of Urban Police Practices#134061
• 2 U.S.C. § 1965a — Prohibition on use of funds for installation of permanent fencing on Capitol Grounds#557919