SynthesisPloS one2025
A systematic review using a multi-layered criteria framework for assessing the validity and reliability of velocity monitoring devices in resistance training.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Advanced Resistance Training Systems on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Recreationally Trained Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Impact of lower-body strength and power on lunge velocity in elite fencers: a comparative weapon analysis.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Force vs. impulse: assessing the applicability of dynamic strength indices in individualized training recommendations.Biology of sport · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVelocity-Based Training (VBT) is an emerging method in resistance training for objectively prescribing and monitoring training intensity and neuromuscular function. Given its growing popularity, assessing the validity and reliability of VBT devices is critical for strength and conditioning coaches.
objectiveThe primary purpose of this review was twofold: (1) to identify and address methodological gaps in current assessments of VBT device validity and reliability, and (2) to propose and apply a novel, multi-layered, criterion-based framework-developed in collaboration with statisticians and domain experts-for evaluating these devices.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus following PRISMA guidelines, focusing on original research studies published before February 2024 that assessed VBT device validity or reliability. Out of 568 studies identified, 75 met the inclusion criteria.
resultsAmong the included studies, 66 investigated device validity and 56 examined reliability, with some studies addressing both aspects. Notably, only 5 of the 66 validity studies met all of the proposed criteria, while just 16 of the 56 reliability investigations satisfied the required statistical thresholds defined by our framework. These findings highlight significant methodological variability and underscore the need for more standardized evaluation practices.
conclusionsThis review systematically evaluated the validity and reliability of various VBT devices and introduced a robust, multi-layered framework for their assessment. By integrating statistician-led and domain expert-led criteria, the framework offers a standardized approach that enhances the precision of device evaluation. Promising tools identified include the GymAware LPT, Perch Motion Capture Single Camera System, Flex optical device, and VmaxPro. Future research should build upon and refine this methodology to further standardize study designs, improve data reporting, and ultimately support more informed decision-making in sports technology and training practice.
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.