Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33918020›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Validity and Reliability of Mobile Applications for Assessing Strength, Power, Velocity, and Change-of-Direction: A Systematic Review.

Rui Silva, Markel Rico-González, Ricardo Lima, Zeki Akyildiz, José Pino-Ortega, Filipe Manuel Clemente

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Videoconference-Based Physical Performance Tests: Reliability and Feasibility Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Match Analysis, Physical Training, Risk of Injury and Rehabilitation in Padel: Overview of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  18. 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.

Rui SilvaInstituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun'Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.
Markel Rico-GonzálezDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country, UPV-EHU, Lasarte 71, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9849-0444
Ricardo LimaInstituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun'Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3552-7534
Zeki AkyildizSports Science Department, Gazi University, Teknikokullar, Ankara 06500, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1743-5989
José Pino-OrtegaBIOVETMED & SPORTSCI Research Group, Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, San Javier, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9091-0897
Filipe Manuel ClementeInstituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun'Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9813-2842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined the validity of apps for measuring human strength, power, velocity, and change-of-direction, and (2) identify and summarize studies that have examined the reliability of apps for measuring human strength, power, velocity, and change-of-direction. A systematic review of Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 435 studies initially identified, 23 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. In total, 11 mobile applications were analyzed and summarized for their validity and reliability to test movement velocity, movement time, movement displacement, power output, and workload. The present systematic review revealed that the tested apps are valid and reliable for measuring bar movement velocity during lower and upper body resistance exercises; however, systematic bias was detected with heavier loads.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsExerciseHumansMovementReproducibility of Resultsaccuracyathletic performancefitnessprecisionsmartphonesports technology

Identifiers

PMID33918020
PMCPMC8070051

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.