ArticlePloS one2025
The influence of common testing floor surfaces on force plate data: Implications for standardisation.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Navigating the Data Processing Maze: A Systematic Review of Jump Height Calculations Using Force Platforms.European journal of sport science · 2026Pooled it
- A scoping review of force plates in female soccer: The utility, existing practice and identification of knowledge Gaps.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Force plate testing is commonly used to assess athlete performance. However, there is limited research on the effect the surface underneath the force plate has on derived variables. The aim of this study was to investigate whether different surfaces underneath a force plate would elicit differences in derived force plate variables using a mechanical testing device. A device was used rather than human participants to ensure controlled and repeatable impacts. The device was used to assess force reduction, peak force, rate of force development (RFD) and contact time across seven common testing surfaces: vinyl, rubber, Olympic lifting platform, ground (CarpetG) and first floor (CarpetF) carpet, Mondo track and a sprung gymnasium floor (Sprung). Significant differences in force reduction, peak force, RFD, and contact time were found between flooring conditions (p < 0.05), with large to extremely large effect sizes. Sprung flooring exhibited the highest force reduction and lowest peak forces, while CarpetF demonstrated the lowest RFD and longest contact time. These findings highlight the flooring surface underneath the force plate during testing significantly influenced derived variables. Practitioners should exert caution and consideration to force plate testing location and advocate standardisation in flooring surface in order to ensure consistent and accurate results.
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.