ArticleScientific reports2024
Test-retest reliability of putting-related variables in medium-to-high handicap golf players.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- IMU Error Propagation in Position Reconstruction and Its Mitigation Through Task-Informed Dual-IMU Constrained Optimization: Application to Golf Putting.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reliability of Obstacle-Crossing Parameters during Overground Walking in Young Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This manuscript aims to study the reliability of different variables related to performance and acceleration during the golf putt in players with medium-to-high handicaps and to determine the number of attempts necessary to find reliable values for these variables. Eight males and two females [55.67 (13.64) years, 78.4 (11.4) kg, 1.75 (7.95) m] participated in two experimental sessions separated by one week. In these sessions, they performed three blocks of 10 putts trying to stop the golf ball at the center of a dartboard painted 2 m away. The performance was assessed depending on the area of the dartboard where the ball stopped, and the acceleration signals were acquired using the Xsens Dot. The results showed that to evaluate performance, 18 trials were necessary to reach reliable values using the 0-10 scoring system, and 28 trials were necessary for the 0-3 scoring system. Regarding the reliability of the accelerometer-related variables, 7 attempts were necessary to obtain good-to-excellent reliability values for most of the variables. It could be concluded that putting in medium-to-high handicap golf players can be reliably measured using the abovementioned protocol.
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.