ArticleJournal of human kinetics2019
Force-Velocity Relationship in the Countermovement Jump Exercise Assessed by Different Measurement Methods.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of starting knee angle in squat jump force-velocity profiles: interactions with subjects' strength levels and imputed push-off distance.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Establishing Reference Values for Isometric Knee Extension and Flexion Strength.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Review
- Strength-Endurance: Interaction Between Force-Velocity Condition and Power Output.Frontiers in physiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare force, velocity, and power output collected under different loads, as well as the force-velocity (F-V) relationship between three measurement methods. Thirteen male judokas were tested under four loading conditions (20, 40, 60, and 80 kg) in the countermovement jump (CMJ) exercise, while mechanical output data were collected by three measurement methods: the Samozino's method (SAM), a force platform (FP), and a linear velocity transducer (LVT). The variables of the linear F-V relationship (maximum force [F0], maximum velocity [V0], F-V slope, and maximum power [P0]) were determined. The results revealed that (1) the LVT overestimated the mechanical output as compared to the SAM and FP methods, especially under light loading conditions, (2) the SAM provided the lowest magnitude for all mechanical output, (3) the F-V relationships were highly linear either for the SAM (r = 0.99), FP (r = 0.97), and LVT (r = 0.96) methods, (4) the F-V slope obtained by the LVT differed with respect to the other methods due to a larger V0 (5.28 ± 1.48 m·s-1) compared to the SAM (2.98 ± 0.64 m·s-1) and FP (3.06 ± 0.42 m·s-1), and (5) the methods were significantly correlated for F0 and P0, but not for V0 or F-V slope. These results only support the accuracy of the SAM and FP to determine the F-V relationship during the CMJ exercise. The very large correlations of the SAM and LVT methods with respect to the FP (presumed gold-standard) for the mean values of force, velocity and power support their concurrent validity for the assessment of mechanical output under individual loads.
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.