ArticlePloS one2024
The reliability of a linear position transducer for measuring countermovement jump performance in national-level road cyclists.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Multivariate Neuromuscular Profile and Principal Component Analysis: A Pilot Study in Professional Female Soccer Players.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of the T-Force and Chronojump systems to measure movement velocity on resistance machines with older adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJump tests have applications in fatigue monitoring, training intervention evaluations, and talent identification in cycling populations. Due to competitive cycling's inherent travel demands, linear position transducers (LPTs) are suitable for assessing jump performance in this population as they are a mobile and validated technology. Understanding the reliability and sensitivity of LPTs in assessing jump performance in cycling populations is required to support the development of sports science protocols. Using an LPT, this study aimed to determine the reliability and sensitivity of countermovement jump (CMJ) variables in road cyclists.
methodsTen national-level male road cyclists performed three maximal CMJ trials twice per week for two weeks, with an LPT measuring force, power, velocity, repetition rate, vertical distance, and concentric time from each trial. Using the mean and best CMJ results from three trials per testing session, the upper limit 90% confidence interval for the coefficient of variation (CV) and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) determined inter-day and -week reliability (CV ≤ 10%) and sensitivity (acceptable sensitivity = CV ≤ SWC) for CMJ variables.
resultsMean power and force, velocity (mean and peak), vertical distance (VD), and concentric time had acceptable inter-day and -week reliability when using either the mean or best CMJ results (CV upper limit 90% confidence interval range = 3.54-10.13%). Moreover, the CV and SWC were typically lower when based on the mean rather than the best of three CMJ trials. Lastly, poor sensitivity (CV > SWC) was evident for all CMJ variables.
conclusionsCMJ-derived mean power and force, velocity (peak and mean), VD, and concentric time have acceptable inter-day and -week reliability when assessed via an LPT in national-level road cyclists. When using an LPT, sports scientists should consider that, while they typically have poor sensitivity, the reliability of CMJ-derived variables improves when expressed as the mean of three trials in national-level road cyclists.
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.