ArticleJournal of human kinetics2025
Validity of Three Commercial Devices for Recording Movement Velocity in the Bulgarian Split Squat.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship for Predicting the 1 RM in the Bulgarian Split Squat Exercise.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Smartphone Camera Positioning on Artificial Intelligence Pose Estimation Accuracy for Exercise Detection: Observational Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Observational
- Observational
- Unilateral low-load blood flow restriction vs. high-load training in the Bulgarian split squat: a randomized within-subject design on strength, hypertrophy, and asymmetry.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Unilateral and bilateral load-velocity relationships in athletes: evidence from a study in boxers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the validity of three commercial devices in recording mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) during a unilateral resistance exercise. Eighteen strength-trained and healthy males performed repetitions of Bulgarian split squats at loads ranging from 40% to 90% of their one-repetition maximum. MV and PV were simultaneously recorded by GymAware, PUSH, My Lift and compared to Vicon for all repetitions. Concurrent validity was assessed through a linear mixed model, as well as mean difference (MD), mean absolute error (MAE) and Hedge's g effect sizes. GymAware was found to be valid in MV (MD = -0.02 to -0.01 m/s, MAE = 0.02 to 0.03 m/s, g = -0.08 to -0.19) and PV (MD = 0.01 to 0.05 m/s, MAE = 0.05 to 0.07 m/s, g = -0.06 to -0.22) recordings. Significant differences were identified between GymAware, PUSH, My Lift and Vicon for both MV (p < 0.01) and PV (p < 0.01) assessments. Moreover, when comparing MV and PV recorded by PUSH and My Lift to Vicon, larger MD and MAE, and trivial to moderate effects were also evident. Therefore, our findings suggest that GymAware could be an alternative for recording MV and PV during unilateral resistance exercises.
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.