Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805150›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Validity of the Favero Assioma Duo Power Pedal System for Measuring Power Output and Cadence.

Almudena Montalvo-Pérez, Lidia B Alejo, Pedro L Valenzuela, Mario Castellanos, Jaime Gil-Cabrera, Eduardo Talavera, Alejandro Lucia, David Barranco-Gil

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Validity of the Quarq Cycling Power Meter.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Almudena Montalvo-PérezFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6138-945X
Lidia B AlejoFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6347-1369
Pedro L ValenzuelaFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1730-3369
Mario CastellanosFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.
Jaime Gil-CabreraFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.
Eduardo TalaveraFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.
Alejandro LuciaFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.
David Barranco-GilFaculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28640 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4869-5900
Universidad Europea de Madrid · ESResearch Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cycling power meters enable monitoring external loads and performance changes. We aimed to determine the concurrent validity of the novel Favero Assioma Duo (FAD) pedal power meter compared with the crank-based SRM system (considered as gold standard). Thirty-three well-trained male cyclists were assessed at different power output (PO) levels (100-500 W and all-out 15-s sprints), pedaling cadences (75-100 rpm) and cycling positions (seating and standing) to compare the FAD device vs. SRM. No significant differences were found between devices for cadence nor for PO during all-out efforts (

Indexed as

cadencecyclinglaboratory testingpedal power meterpower output

Identifiers

PMID33805150
PMCPMC8037746
OpenAlexW3139495915

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.