ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2016
Accuracy and Reliability of a New Tennis Ball Machine.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the Use of the Repeated-Sprint Training in Hypoxia in Tennis.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Article
- Effects of Repeated-Sprint Training in Hypoxia on Tennis-Specific Performance in Well-Trained Players.Sports medicine international open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe aim was to evaluate the reliability of a newly-developed ball machine named 'Hightof', on the field and to assess its accuracy. The experiment was conducted in the collaboration of the 'Hawk-Eye' technology. The accuracy and reliability of this ball machine were assessed during an incremental test, with 1 min of exercise and 30 sec of recovery, where the frequency of the balls increased from 10 to 30 balls·min(-1). The initial frequency was 10 and increased by 2 until 22, then by 1 until 30 balls·min(-1). The reference points for the impact were 8.39m from the net and 2.70m from lateral line for the right side and 2.83m for the left side. The precision of the machine was similar on the right and left sides (0.63 ± 0.39 vs 0.63 ± 0.34 m). The distances to the reference point were 0.52 ± 0.42, 0.26 ± 0.19, 0.52 ± 0.37, 0.28 ± 0.19 m for the Y-right, X-right, Y-left and X-left impacts. The precision was constant and did not increase with the intensity. (e.g ball frequency). The ball velocity was 86.3 ± 1.5 and 86.5 ± 1.3 km·h(-1) for the right and the left side, respectively. The coefficient of variation for the velocity ranged between 1 and 2% in all stages (ball velocity ranging from 10 to 30 balls·min(-1)).
conclusionboth the accuracy and the reliability of this new ball machine appear satisfying enough for field testing and training. Key pointsThe reliability and accuracy of a new ball machine named 'Hightof' were assessed.The impact point was reproducible and similar on the right and left sides (±0.63 m).The precision was constant and did not increase with the intensity (e.g ball frequency).The coefficient of variation of the ball velocity ranged between 1 and 2% in all stages (ball velocity ranging from 10 to 30 balls·min(-1)).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27274663PMC4879439What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.