ArticlePloS one2025
Validity and reliability of sprint force-velocity profiling in elite football: Comparison of MySprint, GPS, and radar devices.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims were to examine the validity and within-session inter-trial, intra- and interrater reliability of sprint force-velocity profiling (FVP) techniques in elite football. Twelve elite youth football players from an English Premier League academy participated in this study. A 30-m maximal effort linear sprint testing protocol was conducted, simultaneously measured using the MySprint app, GPS units, and radar device to derive theoretical maximal horizontal force (F0), theoretical maximal running velocity (V0), and the overall orientation of the profile (FVslope). There were significant differences in F0, V0, and FVslope (p < 0.05) between the MySprint app and radar device, with large effect sizes (ε2 = 0.683, 0.513, and 0.482), but not in F0 or V0 (p > 0.05), between the GPS and radar devices. There were no significant differences in F0 or V0 (p > 0.05) between each players' sprint repeats for all equipment types, with these effect sizes (rrb): MySprint (0.047, 0.523), GPS (0.236, -0.163), radar (0.785, -0.777). RMSE and CV values for F0 and V0 were 0.72-1.20 N/Kg and 3.76-9.59%, 0.21-0.40 m/s and 1.48-2.64%, respectively, with improved reliability and agreement in V0 vs. F0. There was no significant difference in F0 or V0 (p > 0.05), with medium-to-large effect sizes (rrb = -0.242 and -0.636) when the MySprint analysis was repeated by the same rater. RMSE and CV values for F0 and V0 were 0.19 N/Kg and 2.9%, 0.07 m/s and 0.54%. There was no significant difference in F0 or V0 (p > 0.05) between the two raters' MySprint analysis, and ICC demonstrated excellent agreement (F0 = 0.986, CI = 0.950-0.996, and V0 = 0.988, CI = 0.957-0.997). This study reports high intra- and inter-rater reliability when using the MySprint app to derive FVP's from 30-m maximal sprint testing whilst indicating GPS as the most valid and reliable force-velocity profiling technique against the reference radar device.
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.