ArticlePloS one2025
Estimation of maximum lower limb muscle strength from vertical jumps.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An investigation of the reliability, validity, and impact of operator expertise on assessing vertical jump height in collegiate badminton athletes with My Jump Lab.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the one-repetition maximum (1RM) is crucial for organizing training loads, but it also is time-consuming, physically demanding, and poses a risk of injury. Vertical jumps are a less demanding and well-established method to test the ability of the lower limbs to generate great forces over a short time, which may allow for the estimation of 1RM in squatting. The purpose of this study was to develop a model for estimating 1RM back squat from ground reaction forces during vertical jumps. Thirteen healthy participants completed a 1RM back squat test, countermovement jumps, and squat jumps. Five kinematic and kinetic variables (e.g., peak and mean power, relative net impulse, jump height, and peak kinetic energy during various phases) were derived from ground reaction forces collected via a Kistler force plate (1000 Hz). Five out of 5 variables correlated with 1RM in countermovement jump and squat jump (ICC = .96-.98, r = .88-.95, p < .001 and ICC = .97-.99, r = .76-.90, p < .05, respectively). The most accurate stepwise regression model (adjusted R2 = .90, SEE = 13.24 kg, mean error = 7.4% of mean 1RMm, p < .001) estimated 1RM back squat based on peak kinetic energy during countermovement jumps. Estimation errors ranged from 7.4% to 10.7% of mean measured 1RM, with no differences between estimated and measured values (d < 0.01, p = .96-1.00). Estimating 1RM via jump tests may offer a practical alternative to traditional methods, reducing injury risks, testing intervals, and effort. Our study proposes a new possible approach for estimating 1RM back squat from jump forces, providing coaches and sports professionals with a more efficient tool to monitor and adjust training loads.
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.