ArticlePloS one2022
The validity and reliability of wearable devices for the measurement of vertical oscillation for running.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context-Dependent Differences in Muscle Architecture Following Fatigue in Ultramarathon Athletes: A Comparison Between Laboratory and Real Race Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Downhill Running-Induced Muscle Damage in Trail Runners: An Exploratory Study Regarding Training Background and Running Gait.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validation of Garmin HRM-Pro for Assessment of Spatiotemporal Parameters During Treadmill Running: Agreement with Three Motion Analysis Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing Trail Running Biomechanics: A Comparative Analysis of the Reliability of StrydSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Parameterization of Biomechanical Variables through Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) in Occasional Healthy Runners.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- From data to decision: Machine learning determination of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds in athletes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Stance Time and Impact Loading Rates are Significant Predictors of Critical Speed During a 3-Minute All-Out Running Test.International journal of exercise science · 2024Article
- Sensitiveness of Variables Extracted from a Fitness Smartwatch to Detect Changes in Vertical Impact Loading during Outdoors Running.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
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
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.