Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36395290›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

The validity and reliability of wearable devices for the measurement of vertical oscillation for running.

Craig P Smith, Elliott Fullerton, Liam Walton, Emelia Funnell, Dimitrios Pantazis, Heinz Lugo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Craig P SmithINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0869-0726
Elliott FullertonINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Liam WaltonINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Emelia FunnellINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Dimitrios PantazisINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Heinz LugoINCUS Performance Ltd., Loughborough, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable devices are a popular training tool to measure biomechanical performance indicators during running, including vertical oscillation (VO). VO is a contributing factor in running economy and injury risk, therefore VO feedback can have a positive impact on running performance. The validity and reliability of the VO measurements from wearable devices is crucial for them to be an effective training tool. The aims of this study were to test the validity and reliability of VO measurements from wearable devices against video analysis of a single trunk marker. Four wearable devices were compared: the INCUS NOVA, Garmin Heart Rate Monitor-Pro (HRM), Garmin Running Dynamics Pod (RDP), and Stryd Running Power Meter Footpod (Footpod). Fifteen participants completed treadmill running at five different self-selected speeds for one minute at each speed. Each speed interval was completed twice. VO was recorded simultaneously by video and the wearables devices. There was significant effect of measurement method on VO (p < 0.001), with the NOVA and Footpod underestimating VO compared to video analysis, while the HRM and RDP overestimated. Although there were significant differences in the average VO values, all devices were significantly correlated with the video analysis (R > = 0.51, p < 0.001). Significant agreement between repeated VO measurements for all devices, revealed the devices to be reliable (ICC > = 0.948, p < 0.001). There was also significant agreement for VO measurements between each device and the video analysis (ICC > = 0.731, p < = 0.001), therefore validating the devices for VO measurement during running. These results demonstrate that wearable devices are valid and reliable tools to detect changes in VO during running. However, VO measurements varied significantly between the different wearables tested and this should be considered when comparing VO values between devices.

Indexed as

RunningWearable Electronic DevicesExercise TestHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36395290
PMCPMC9671438

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.