Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39446844›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Validity and reliability of velocity and power measures provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer.

Santiago A Ruiz-Alias, Deniz Şentürk, Zeki Akyildiz, Onat Çetin, Selman Kaya, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Ivan Jukic

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Santiago A Ruiz-AliasDepartment of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Deniz Şentürkİstanbul Gelişim University School of Physical Education and Sports, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-1736-6482
Zeki AkyildizSports Science Faculty, Department of Coaching Education, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1743-5989
Onat ÇetinYalova University, Faculty of Sports Science, Yalova, Turkey.
Selman KayaYalova University, Faculty of Sports Science, Yalova, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-2185-6436
Alejandro Pérez-CastillaDepartment of Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Almería, Almería, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5535-2087
Ivan JukicSport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0900-9410

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the validity and between-day reliability of the mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer at different submaximal loads in the free-weight and Smith machine back squat using GymAware as a reference point. Fourteen male sports science students (free-weight back squat one-repetition maximum [1RM]: 132.5 ± 28.5 kg, Smith machine back squat 1RM: 163.9 ± 30.4 kg) performed six experimental sessions, twice per week with 72 hours of rest. The first two included the assessment of the 1RM of both exercises. In the four remaining, both linear position transducers were simultaneously used to record MV, PV, MP, PP of each repetition during an incremental load test (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 1RM) with three minutes of rest between sets. Vitruve displayed both fixed and proportional bias for certain relative loads across all variables. Vitruve did not meet the validity criteria for all (MV, PP) or at least two (MP, PV) relative loads (Coefficient of variation [CV] > 10%; Pearson correlation < 0.70; Effect size > 0.60). MV, PV, MP, and PP recorded by Vitruve displayed acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) with superior reliability observed during a Smith Machine compared to free-weight back squat, and for velocity compared to power variables. Considering GymAware as a reference point, Vitruve was not valid for measuring velocity and power outcomes. Acceptable validity was observed only for PV in the Smith machine back squat, while the other variables-regardless of relative loads and exercise modes-were mostly inaccurate. All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability, with greater reliability noted in the Smith machine compared to the free-weight back squat exercise mode.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthAdultExercise TestHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalReproducibility of ResultsResistance TrainingTransducersWeight LiftingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39446844
PMCPMC11500865

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.