ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021
Observational Screening Guidelines and Smartphone Accelerometer Thresholds to Establish the Intensity of Some of the Most Popular Core Stability Exercises.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07315321 (Effect of Two Core Stability Training Programs of Different Intensity on Trunk Function, Postural Control and Functional Mobility in Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Effect of Two Core Stability Training Programs of Different Intensity on Trunk Function, Postural Control and Functional Mobility in Older Adults: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Effect of Body Position and Support Surface on the Postural Control Challenge During the Pallof Press Exercise: A Smartphone Accelerometer-Based Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Mobile Accelerometer Applications in Core Muscle Rehabilitation and Pre-Operative Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lack of training load control, mainly exercise intensity, is one of the main limitations of core stability (CS) programs, which makes the training individualization and the analysis of the dose-response relationship difficult. The objectives of this study were to assess the inter-and intra-rater agreement when using new observational screening guidelines to decide if a core stability exercise represents an adequate training intensity level for a given participant. Besides, the relationship between experts' ratings based on these criteria and pelvic accelerations recorded with a smartphone accelerometer was also analyzed. Ten healthy physically active participants with a smartphone accelerometer placed on their pelvis were video-taped while performing a progression of seven variations of the front bridge, back bridge, side bridge and bird-dog exercises. Two expert and four non-expert raters watched the videos and used the observational screening guidelines to decide for each exercise variation if it represented an adequate training intensity level or not. In order to analyze the inter-and intra-rater agreement, several Kappa (κ) statistics were used. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to explore if the accelerometry allowed to establish pelvic acceleration thresholds representing the minimum level of exercise intensity for CS training. Cut-off acceleration values were calculated balancing sensitivity (Se) and 1-specifity (1-Sp) indexes (i.e., Youden index) or minimizing 1-Sp. The intra-and inter-rater analysis showed a substantial-high level of agreement with a prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted Kappa > 0.69. The ROC curves showed that the acceleration thresholds for the bridging exercises were very similar, with global cut-off values of 0.35 m/s
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.