Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34173966›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2021

Validity and reliability of innovative field measurements of tibial accelerations and spinal kinematics during cricket fast bowling.

Billy Senington, Raymond Y Lee, Jonathan Mark Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Billy SeningtonSchool of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7WG, UK.
Raymond Y LeeFaculty of Technology, Portsmouth University, Portsmouth, UK.
Jonathan Mark WilliamsFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth Gateway Building, St Paul's Lane, Bournemouth, BH8 8GP, Dorset, UK. jwilliams@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of inertial sensors in fast bowling analysis may offer a cheaper and portable alternative to current methodologies. However, no previous studies have assessed the validity and reliability of such methods. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of collecting tibial accelerations and spinal kinematics using inertial sensors during in vivo fast bowling. Thirty-five elite male fast bowlers volunteered for this study. An accelerometer attached to the skin over the tibia was used to determine impacts and inertial sensors over the S1, L1 and T1 spinous processes used to derive the relative kinematics. These measurements were compared to optoelectronic and force plate data for validity analysis. Most acceleration and kinematics variables measured report significant correlations > 0.8 with the corresponding gold standard measurement, with intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.7. Low standard error of measurement and consequently small minimum detectable change (MDC) values were also observed. This study demonstrates that inertial sensors are as valid and reliable as current methods of fast bowling analysis and may provide some advantages over traditional methods. The novel metrics and methods described in this study may aid coaches and practitioners in the design and monitoring of fast bowling technique. Graphical abstract illustrating the synopsis of the findings from this paper.

Indexed as

SportsTibiaAccelerationBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsAccelerometerInertial sensorsReliabilitySpineTibia

Identifiers

PMID34173966
PMCPMC8313468

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.