ArticlePloS one2021
How far from the gold standard? Comparing the accuracy of a Local Position Measurement (LPM) system and a 15 Hz GPS to a laser for measuring acceleration and running speed during team sports.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- Assessing High-Intensity Acceleration Efforts Using Local Positioning System-Introducing the Concept of the Relative Acceleration Threshold to Ice Hockey.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing Deceleration Performance: Methodological and Practical Considerations.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Mechanical work derived using markerless motion capture provides a valid indication of acute neuromuscular fatigue in tennis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Examining the association between speed and myoelectric activity: Time-based differences and muscle group balance.PloS one · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the validity and inter- and intra-unit reliability of local (LPM) and global (GPS) position measurement systems for measuring acceleration during team sports.
methodsDevices were attached to a remote-controlled car and validated against a laser. Mean percentage biases (MPBs) of maximal acceleration (amax) and maximal running speed (vmax) were used to measure validity. Mean between-device and mean within-device standard deviations of the percentage biases (bd-SDs and wd-SDs) of amax and vmax were used to measure inter- and intra-unit reliability, respectively.
resultsBoth systems tended to underestimate amax similarly (GPS: -61.8 to 3.5%; LPM: -53.9 to 9.6%). The MPBs of amax were lower in trials with unidirectional linear movements (GPS: -18.8 to 3.5%; LPM: -11.2 to 9.6%) than in trials with changes of direction (CODs; GPS: -61.8 to -21.1%; LPM: -53.9 to -35.3%). The MPBs of vmax (GPS: -3.3 to -1.0%; LPM: -12.4 to 1.5%) were lower than those of amax. The bd-SDs and the wd-SDs of amax were similar for both systems (bd-SDs: GPS: 2.8 to 12.0%; LPM 3.7 to 15.3%; wd-SDs: GPS: 3.7 to 28.4%; LPM: 5.3 to 27.2%), whereas GPS showed better bd-SDs of vmax than LPM.
conclusionThe accuracy depended strongly on the type of action measured, with CODs displaying particularly poor validity, indicating a challenge for quantifying training loads in team sports.
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.