ArticleiScience2024
Validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device for Smith machine back squat exercise.
Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability, Device Agreement and Validity of Load-Velocity Profiles: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Network Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Different Exercise Types in Patients With COPD.Respiratory care · 2024Pooled it
- Validity and reliability of the Tianyu climbing machine in maximal oxygen uptake testing.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Post-activation performance enhancement in resisted sprinting: effects of different loads and rest intervals on 100-m sprint segments.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device Jueying (Beijing, China) for Smith machine back squat exercise. Twelve male participants completed two test sessions with an interval of one week. In each test session, participants completed 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% of 1RM back squats on a Smith machine equipped with Jueying and a linear position transducer GymAware (Canberra, Australia), which measured the velocity and power during the movement simultaneously. Results showed that Jueying was both valid (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.896-0.999, effect size [ES] = 0.004-0.192) when compared with GymAware and consistent between two tests in terms of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.79-0.95) to assess speed and power within all exercises. The device could be applied to provide athletes and coaches with effective and reliable data in actual application.
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.