ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2023
Methods to assess validity of positioning systems in team sports: can we do better?
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There is previously reported a large variety of criterion measures and reference systems applied to validate position tracking systems in sports. This study aims to investigate the effect of different criterion measures and reference systems on the outcome of accuracy assessments of tracking systems in sports. Methods: Data from a commercially available standalone global navigation satellite system (GNSS) were compared with two different reference systems: a high-end differential GNSS and a tape measure. Differences in accuracy outcomes of position (static and dynamic), distance and speed (mean and instantaneous) were investigated in team sport imitation courses. Results: The mean horizontal position error was larger when athletes were in motion (dynamic position; 1.53±0.82 m) compared with static measurements (1.10±0.60 m). Measured distances of the courses were markedly different (+6% to -17%) between the two reference systems, causing differences in error. Differences in error were also found between mean speed and instantaneous speed (0.10 vs 0.28 m). Errors in mean speed were highly affected by the time over which speed was averaged. Conclusion: Choice of criterion measure and reference system has a substantial impact on the accuracy assessments of tracking systems. Specifically, assessing static position is not a substitute for dynamic position, and mean speed is not a substitute for instantaneous speed. Therefore, the outcomes of validation studies should always be interpreted in light of the reference methods that were used.
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.