ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Reliability and Sensitivity of Enode/Vmaxpro Sensor for Muscle Power Assessment.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Regardless of the level of physical activity, performance monitoring is a valuable component of the training process. The aim of this research was to assess the reliability and sensitivity of parameter measurements using the Enode/Vmaxpro sensor. (2) Methods: Metric characteristics were examined for average velocity, peak velocity, average power, peak power, movement length, and movement duration. Twenty-seven participants (15 men and 12 women) underwent body composition analysis and testing on a combined leg extension/leg curl machine, performing the exercises with each leg individually under a 30% body mass load. Descriptive statistics, reliability analyses, and difference analyses were conducted to evaluate repeatability and sensitivity levels. The significance threshold was set at the level 0.05. (3) Results: Reliability parameters were found to be statistically significant, both overall (ICC: 0.937-0.991) and separately for men (ICC: 0.899-0.984) and women (ICC: 0.908-0.990). Sensitivity was confirmed through significant differences based on sex (
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.