ArticlePloS one2019
Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Acute Effects of Blood Flow Restriction on Ankle Muscle Reaction Time and Proprioception in Healthy Individuals.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Trial
- Effects of a core stability exercise program on balance and coordination in children with cerebellar ataxic cerebral palsy.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2022Trial
- The associations of body composition, fitness, and physical activity with balance in children: The Arkansas Active Kids study.Gait & posture · 2025Article
- The effect of removing hearing aids on postural sway in older adults with age-related hearing loss: an experimental study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Reliability of a New Test of Balance Function in Healthy and Concussion Populations.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the three devices was measured for PC.
methodsOverall 22 participants (age = 37.8 ± 13.3 years; gender = 9 male, 13 female; height = 174.1 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 75.3 ± 17.6 kg) were recruited to participate. Double and single leg standing balance tests with eyes open or closed and counter movement jumps (CMJ) were performed on two separate occasions. Reliability and concurrent validity for COP parameters and VJP were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots (BAP), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).
resultsCOP path length test-retest reliability was predominantly good to excellent for all three devices (ICC = 0.80-0.95). SEM and MDC values were high for all plates (SEM% = 8.0-15.2; MDC% = 22.8-44.5), with the HBS MDC values higher than the KIS and BTG in three of the four trials. ICC scores for concurrent validity were good to excellent for the BTG (ICC = 0.76-0.93) and moderate to good for the HBS (0.49-0.83). Band-Altman plots revealed a systematic bias for the HBS towards higher COP path length values under all conditions and for the BTG in two out of four trials towards lower values. Validity of VJP was excellent for the BTG (ICC = 1.0) and poor for the HBS (0.34), with a systematic bias towards lower values.
conclusionThe comparative analysis of PC and VJP revealed reliable and valid results for the BTG in comparison to a laboratory-grade force plate. The HBS showed reliable results for PC assessment with restrictions regarding its validity. Results of VJP showed that the HBS revealed deficits in the assessment of activities that require rapid, high force movements such as jumping and running. Due to the variable results of all three devices, it is recommended not to use them interchangeably.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.