ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2025
Comparison of Kinematic Outputs and Reliability of Plug-in Gait versus Conventional Gait Model 2 During Cycling.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 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.
- Comparison of Plug-in Gait and CGM2.3 models reveals systematic differences in joint kinematics and kinetics.Scientific reports · 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
Motion analysis is used to measure proper bicycle fit, avoid injury, and improve cycling performance. Small changes in position can impact joint kinematics and risk for overuse injury. Concerns regarding the often-used biomechanical model Plug-in-Gait (PIG) resulted in the creation of Conventional Gait Model 2 (CGM2). This study aims to compare kinematic outputs of these two models for cycling biomechanics plus between-day reliability of each model. Thirty-five participants participated in two experimental sessions. PiG and CGM2 marker sets were applied, and data was collected while cycling between 80-90 rpm. Model outputs were compared using session one kinematic data. Reliability tests used session one and session two data. Differences in kinematics were found between models for hip flexion (CGM2 - PiG mean difference = -8.2° ± 5.2°,
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.