Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30356977›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

The validity and reliability of the "

Rejane Maria Cruvinel-Cabral, Iransé Oliveira-Silva, André Ricarte Medeiros, João Gustavo Claudino, Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Daniel A Boullosa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Reliability ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rejane Maria Cruvinel-CabralPhysical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Águas Claras, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5911-0402
Iransé Oliveira-SilvaPhysical Education Course, University Center of Anápolis - UniEVANGÉLICA, Anápolis, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2692-1548
André Ricarte MedeirosPhysical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Águas Claras, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2097-4112
João Gustavo ClaudinoSchool of Physical Education and Sport, Laboratory of Biomechanics, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro Jiménez-ReyesCentre for Sport Studies, King Juan Carlos University, Móstoles, Spain.
Daniel A BoullosaPhysical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Águas Claras, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8477-127X
Universidade Católica de Brasília · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Evangelica de Goiás · BRUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to jump has been related to muscle strength and power, speed and amplitude of the lower limbs movements, and specifically for the elderly, the vertical jump has been shown to be a good predictor of functional capacity and risk of falling. The use of a mobile application (

methodsAfter familiarization, 41 participants performed three CMJs assessed via a contact mat and the

resultsThe CMJ height of the highest jump was 10.78 ± 5.23 cm with contact mat, and 10.87 ± 5.32 with

conclusionOur results suggest that the

Indexed as

ExplosivenessFunctional capacityOlderPhysical capacitySeniors

Identifiers

PMID30356977
PMCPMC6193468
OpenAlexW2896982844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.