Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35146423›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2021

Initial Evaluation of the Concept-2 Rowing Ergometer's Accuracy Using a Motorized Test Rig.

Gunnar Treff, Lennart Mentz, Benjamin Mayer, Kay Winkert, Thomas Engleder, Jürgen M Steinacker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Diagnostics ofMetabolites · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gunnar TreffDivision of Sports- and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Lennart MentzDivision of Sports- and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Benjamin MayerInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Kay WinkertDivision of Sports- and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Thomas EnglederFaculty of Mechatronics and Medical Engineering, University of Applied Sciences, Ulm, Germany.
Jürgen M SteinackerDivision of Sports- and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Paracelsus Medical University · ATTechnische Hochschule Ulm · DEZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Concept 2 (C2) rowing ergometer is used worldwide for home-based training, official competitions, and performance assessment in sports and science. Previous studies reported a disparate underestimation of mechanical power output positively related to an unclearly defined stroke variability. The aim of this study was to quantify the accuracy of the C2 while controlling for the potentially influencing variables of the rowing stroke by using a test rig for air-braked rowing ergometers and thus excluding biological variability.

methodsA unique motorized test rig for rowing ergometers was employed. Accuracy was assessed as the difference in mechanical power output between C2 and a reference system during steady (i.e., minimal variations of stroke power within a series of 50 spacemark, no -strokes) and unsteady simulated rowing (i.e., persistent variations during measurement series) while manipulating the stroke variables shape, force, or rate.

resultsDuring steady simulated rowing, differences between C2 and the reference system ranged 2.9-4.3%. Differences were not significantly affected by stroke shapes (

conclusionDue to the enormous underestimation of the start strokes, the nominal accuracy of the C2 depends on the total number of strokes considered. It ranges 0.2-1.9%, once the flywheel has been sufficiently accelerated. Inaccuracy increases with uneven rowing, but the stroke shape has a marginal impact. Hence, rowers should row as even as possible and prefer higher stroke rates to optimize C2 readings. We recommend external reference systems for scientific and high-performance assessments, especially for short tests designs where the start strokes will have a major impact.

Indexed as

automated testinghome-based trainingindoor rowingpower outputvalidity

Identifiers

PMID35146423
PMCPMC8821892
OpenAlexW4210689860

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.