ArticleJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology2024
Full-Body Harness versus Waist Belt: An Examination of Force Production and Pain during an Isoinertial Device Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.
Article in Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study examined the differences in participant force production and pain between a squat maximal voluntary isometric contraction (IMVIC) performed with either a waist belt (WB) or full-body harness (FBH) on the Desmotec D.EVO isoinertial device (D.EVO). Agreement between FBH IMVIC and a traditional force plate squat MVIC (TMVIC) was also assessed.
methodsTwenty adults completed FBH, WB, and TMVIC assessments on two separate occasions. Two-way treatment x time ANOVAs were conducted to compare force outputs and pain between treatments (FBH vs. WB) across time. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Associations between outcomes were determined using Pearson's r. Standard error of estimate, constant error, total error, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between IMVIC and TMVIC.
resultsFBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.
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.