ArticlePeerJ2024
Test-retest reliability of a single isometric mid-thigh pull protocol to assess peak force and strength-endurance.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Inter-Session Reliability of an Isometric Muscle Strength Protocol in Older Adults.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- The Impact of Real-Time Visual Feedback on Maximal Force Output and Reliability During Isometric MidThigh Pull Testing in Resistance-Trained Men.European journal of sport science · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of strength-endurance protocols using isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Twenty-eight participants (23.2 ± 4.9 years) completed two protocols across four testing sessions. Protocol one consisted of 10 maximal IMTP tests lasting 5 seconds each with 10 seconds rest between. Protocol two consisted of a prolonged 60 second maximal IMTP. Data from protocol 1 was analysed in two ways; (a) use of the highest peak value from the first three IMTP efforts, and the lowest peak value from the final three IMTP efforts, and (b) use of the mean peak force from the first three IMTP efforts and mean peak force from the final three IMTP efforts. Data from protocol two used the highest and lowest peak values in the first- and final-15 seconds. Analyses revealed excellent reliability for peak force across all four testing sessions (ICC = 0.94), as well as good test-retest reliability for strength-endurance for protocol 1 (a; ICC = 0.81, b; ICC = 0.79). Test-retest reliability for protocol 2 was poor (ICC = 0.305). Bland-Altman bias values were smaller for protocol 1(a = -8.8 Nm, b = 21.7 Nm) compared to protocol 2 = (119.3 Nm). Our data suggest that 10 maximal IMTP tests performed as described herein is a reliable method for exercise professionals to assess both peak force and strength-endurance in a single, time-efficient 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.