Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37430826›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of Pressure-Detecting Insoles for Static and Dynamic Movements in Healthy Young Adults.

Johanna Lambrich, Marco Hagen, Gerrit Schwiertz, Thomas Muehlbauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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. Geometric Feature Relationship-Based Knowledge Distillation for Ground Reaction Force Estimation.Measurement : journal of the International Measurement Confederation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. AddBiomechanics Dataset: Capturing the Physics of Human Motion at Scale.Computer vision - ECCV ... : ... European Conference on Computer Vision : proceedings. European Conference on Computer Vision · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors.

Johanna LambrichDivision of Movement and Training Sciences/Biomechanics of Sport, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2074-3974
Marco HagenDivision of Movement and Training Sciences/Biomechanics of Sport, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.
Gerrit SchwiertzDivision of Movement and Training Sciences/Biomechanics of Sport, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.
Thomas MuehlbauerDivision of Movement and Training Sciences/Biomechanics of Sport, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7774-8664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compared to force-plates, pressure-detecting insoles have the advantage that vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) can be estimated under field rather than laboratory conditions. However, the question arises whether insoles also provide valid and reliable results compared to a force-plate (i.e., the gold standard). The study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of pressure-detecting insoles during static and dynamic movements. Twenty-two healthy young adults (12 females) performed standing, walking, running, and jumping movements while simultaneously collecting pressure (GP MobilData WiFi, GeBioM mbH, Münster, Germany) and force (Kistler

Indexed as

Bone PlatesHealth StatusFemaleGermanyHumansLaboratoriesReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultforce platejumpingpressure insolerepeatabilityrunningstandingvalidationwalking

Identifiers

PMID37430826
PMCPMC10220762

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.