ArticleScientific reports2024
The validity and reliability of the jump power app for measuring vertical jump actions in professional soccer 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Architectural and Performance Adaptations of Hip Extension Exercise Under Gravitational or Inertial Loading Conditions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.European journal of sport science · 2025Trial
- Mobile Health (mHealth) Apps in Sport Training: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of Sodium Bicarbonate Supplementation on Performance and Gastrointestinal Symptoms During a High-Intensity Training Session in Elite Rugby Players: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The effects of 8 weeks of functional strength training and blood flow restriction training on lower limb muscle strength, maximal power, and movement quality in male sprinter college athletes.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
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
This research examines the reliability, validity, and usefulness of the Jump Power application by comparing it with the reliable and validated Optojump photoelectric cell system in measuring squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) in professional athletes. Twenty-two soccer players volunteered to participate in the research. The participants were the players of the U21 team in the 1st League. All athletes were subjected to SJ and CMJ tests. Jump Power app and Optojump data were acquired simultaneously during SJ and CMJ. Trial procedure was performed on three separate occasions (Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3), with 48 h intervals to examine the reliability of the data from session to session. For reliability analysis, coefficients of variation percent (%CV). Jump power app reliability values CV% is below 5%. In the validity analysis, significant differences were observed between the Optojump photoelectric cell system and the Jump Power App for SJ and CMJ. In conclusion, this study revealed that the Jump Power app is a reliable but not valid tool to measure vertical jumps in soccer players.
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.