ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Smartphone and Tablet Software Apps to Collect Data in Sport and Exercise Settings: Cross-sectional International Survey.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 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.
- Mobile Health (mHealth) Apps in Sport Training: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of the accuracy and reliability of vertical jump evaluation using a low-cost acquisition system.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Tablet-Based Wearable Patch Sensor Design for Continuous Cardiovascular System Monitoring in Postoperative Settings.Biosensors · 2023Article
- The Impact of Parental Migration on Multidimensional Health of Children in Rural China: The Moderating Effect of Mobile Phone Addiction.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Use, and acceptability, of digital health technologies in musculoskeletal physical therapy: A survey of physical therapists and patients.Musculoskeletal care · 2022Article
- Mobile applications for the sport and exercise nutritionist: a narrative review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in smartphone technology have facilitated an increase in the number of commercially available smartphone and tablet apps that enable the collection of physiological and biomechanical variables typically monitored in sport and exercise settings. Currently, it is not fully understood whether individuals collect data using mobile devices and tablets, independent of additional hardware, in their practice.
objectiveThis study aims to explore the use of smartphone and tablet software apps to collect data by individuals working in various sport and exercise settings, such as sports coaching, strength and conditioning, and personal training.
methodsA total of 335 practitioners completed an electronic questionnaire that surveyed their current training practices, with a focus on 2 areas: type of data collection and perceptions of reliability and validity regarding app use. An 18-item questionnaire, using a 5-point Likert scale, evaluated the perception of app use.
resultsA total of 204 respondents reported using apps to directly collect data, with most of them (196/335, 58.5%) collecting biomechanical data, and 41.2% (138/335) respondents reported using at least one evidence-based app. A binomial general linear model determined that evidence accessibility (β=.35, 95% CI 0.04-0.67; P=.03) was significantly related to evidence-based app use. Age (β=-.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; P=.03) had a significant negative effect on evidence-based app use.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that practitioners show a greater preference for using smartphones and tablet devices to collect biomechanical data such as sprint velocity and jump performance variables. When it is easier to access information on the quality of apps, practitioners are more likely to use evidence-based apps. App developers should seek independent research to validate their apps. In addition, app developers should seek to provide clear signposting to the scientific support of their software in alternative ways.
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.