ArticlePloS one2024
Reliability and validity of a low-cost, wireless sensor and smartphone app for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance exercises.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and Reliability of the G-Force System: Force Plate and Load Cell for the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull in Physically Active Adults: A Repeated-Measures Method-Comparison Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Agreement-Based Validation of ISOMETRO for Upper-Limb Isometric Tension Measurements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of an affordable wireless force sensor in measuring mean and peak forces during resistance training.A Suiff Pro wireless force sensor (Suiff, Spain) and a MuscleLab force platform (Ergotest, Norway) were used concurrently to assess tensile load and the ground reaction force resulting from an upright row exercise. Thirteen participants (28.2 ± 5.7 years, 76.2 ± 9.6 kg, 178.2 ± 9.2 cm) performed the exercise under three velocity conditions and isometrically. Each condition involved three sets of exercise. Mean (Fmean) and peak (Fpeak) force values from both sensors were collected and compared.Suiff Pro exhibited excellent reliability for Fmean and Fpeak (ICCs = 0.99). When compared to the criterion measures, Suiff Pro showed trivial standardized bias for Fmean (Mean = 0.00 [CI 95% = 0.00 to 0.01]) and Fpeak (-0.02 [-0.04 to 0.00]). The standardized typical error was also trivial for Fmean (0.03 [0.02 to 0.03]) and Fpeak (0.07 [0.05 to 0.09]). Correlations with the MuscleLab force platform were nearly perfect: Fmean (0.97 [0.94 to 0.98]; p<0.001); Fpeak (0.96 [0.92 to 0.97]; p<0.001).The findings demonstrate that the Suiff Pro sensor is reliable and valid device for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance training exercises. Therefore, practitioners can confidently use this device to monitor kinematic variables of resistance training exercises and to obtain real-time augmented feedback during a training session.
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.