ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to detect small changes in a vertical jump is crucial when data are used by sports science specialists to monitor their athletes. This study aimed to analyze the intrasession reliability of the ADR jumping photocell and the reliability relative to the position of the transmitter when it is located facing the phalanges of the foot (forefoot) or the metatarsal area (midfoot). A total of 12 female volleyball players performed 240 countermovement jumps (CMJ), alternating both methods. The intersession reliability was higher for the forefoot method (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.95; SEM = 1.15 cm; CV = 4.11%) than for the midfoot method (ICC = 0.85; CCC = 0.81; SEM = 3.68 cm; CV = 8.75%). Similarly, the sensitivity values were better for the forefoot method (SWC = 0.32) than for the midfoot method (SWC = 1.04). Significant differences were found between the methods (13.5 cm,
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.