ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2023
Reliability and validity of Polar Team Pro measurements in running at different velocities in an indoor setting.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heart Rate Variability and Body Motion as Digital Biomarkers of Task Workload During Military En Route Critical Care Simulations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Weekly Heart Rate Variability and Training Zone Analysis in U-15 Soccer Players: The Predictive Value of Combined Warm-up Protocols for Optimizing Cardiovascular Monitoring.Advanced biomedical research · 2026Article
- Competitive Match Running Speed Demands and Impact of Changing the Head Coach in Non-League Professional Football.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of Polar Team Pro measurements of velocity, acceleration, and distance covered in a rectangular run at different intensities in an indoor setting. In two test sessions, 10 women (age 15.7 ± 0.4 years, body mass 61.3 ± 5.3 kg, body height 1.69 ± 0.07 m) performed 100 m runs at different intensities, ranging from 8 to 18 km/h. The 100 m runs were performed on a rectangular track at an indoor handball facility. The main finding revealed that Polar Team Pro underestimated the running distance and velocity (10%-15% at 10 km/h), especially at higher speeds (15% and 6% at 15 and 18 km/h, respectively). Between test days, coefficients of variance varied from 4.2% to 12.4%, when measuring at different speeds. However, a significant difference was found for the two runs only at 15 km/h between the two test days. It was concluded that Polar Team Pro underestimated the running distance and velocity when measuring a rectangular run at different speeds in an indoor setting, especially at higher speeds. This underestimation is probably caused by the inaccuracy of the inertial measurement unit algorithm that calculates the distance, as body height influences the distance and velocity measurements. The variability between the different units is, thereby, also influenced, causing variable coefficients of variance between the sensors. Test-retest variability was acceptable. Based on the findings of this study, practitioners should be cautious when measuring speed and distance using Polar Team Pro Sensors in indoor settings, as these measurements are underestimated with increasing speed.
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.