Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39330711›Full record

ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Validity and Reliability of Wearable Technology Devices during Simulated Pickleball Game Play.

James W Navalta, Bryson Carrier, Matahn Blank, Setareh Zarei, Dustin W Davis, Micah Craig, Olivia R Perez, Jacob Baca, Thea S Sweder, Tashari Carballo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

James W NavaltaDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4445-7614
Bryson CarrierDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-4240
Matahn BlankDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-2329-5131
Setareh ZareiDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Dustin W DavisDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5894-3851
Micah CraigDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Olivia R PerezDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Jacob BacaDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Thea S SwederDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Tashari CarballoDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.
Jamaal BovellDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pickleball is a popular sport. Also popular is wearable technology usage. Because the validity and reliability of wearable technology during pickleball is unknown, the purpose of this research was to evaluate the ability of common devices to return heart rate and estimated energy expenditure during pickleball activity. Twenty adult participants were outfitted with a portable metabolic unit and heart rate monitor (criterion measures). Experimental devices were a Garmin Instinct, Polar Vantage M2, Polar OH1, and Polar Verity Sense. Participants played simulated pickleball for 10 min. Validity measures included mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), whereas reliability measures included coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The heart rate returned lower than 10% MAPE across all devices (Instinct = 5.73-6.32%, Verity Sense = 2.92-2.97%, OH1 = 3.39-3.45%) and greater than 0.85 CCC (Instinct = 0.85-0.88, Verity Sense = 0.96-0.96, OH1 = 0.93-0.94). The CV was below 10% (Instinct = 9.30%, Verity Sense = 2.68%, OH1 = 5.01%), and ICC was above 0.7 (Instinct = 0.77, Verity Sense = 0.98, OH1 = 0.91). The energy expenditure MAPE was greater than 10% (Instinct = 27.67-28.08%, Vantage M2 = 18.87-23.38%) with CCC lower than 0.7 (Instinct = 0.47-0.49, Vantage M2 = 0.62-0.63). Reliability thresholds were met in the Vantage M2 (CV = 6%, ICC = 0.98) but not in the Instinct (CV = 15%, ICC = 0.86). The Instinct was neither valid nor reliable for estimated energy expenditure, while the Polar Vantage M2 was reliable but not valid. All devices returned valid and reliable heart rates during pickleball.

Indexed as

accuracyconsistencyGarmin Instinctpaddle sportPolar Vantage M2

Identifiers

PMID39330711
PMCPMC11436253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.