ArticlePloS one2025
Comparisons between different methods of calculating dynamic strength index: Effect on training recommendations.
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.
- Neuromuscular Profile of CrossFitJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An impulse-based dynamic strength index (iDSI) that constitutes time-dependent force expression in contrast to the common peak force-based DSI (fDSI) may be more insightful when considering training recommendations. However, a limitation of the iDSI is that any change in countermovement jump (CMJ) propulsion phase duration could affect longitudinal comparisons. A fixed duration (e.g., 250 ms) iDSI however could overcome this limitation. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of different methods of calculating DSI (fDSI, iDSI matched, iDSI fixed) on the DSI value and resultant training prioritization. Thirty-seven team sport athletes (female = 13, male = 25, age = 22.2 ± 2.8 years, height = 174.4 ± 6.0 cm, mass = 74.9 ± 11.9 kg) performed three maximal effort CMJ and three isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) trials on force plates Fixed iDSI was identified from IMTP onset-250 ms, while matched iDSI was identified from IMTP onset-matched to CMJ propulsion phase duration. Participants were characterized using thresholds >0.80, 0.60-0.80 and <0.60 for maximal force, balanced, and dynamic force-based training, respectively. Mean ± SD of fDSI, fixed iDSI and matched iDSI were 0.82 ± 0.12, 0.88 ± 0.11 and 0.82 ± 0.11, respectively. Fixed iDSI was significantly and meaningfully greater than both fDSI and matched iDSI (p < 0.049, d > 0.408), with no differences between the latter (p = 1.000, d = 0.007). There were large intra-individual differences in the training recommendations, 44.7% of the recommendations were consistent between fDSI and matched iDSI and 55.3% were consistent for fDSI and fixed iDSI. In contrast, there was a greater consistency in training recommendations between fixed iDSI and matched iDSI (84.2%). Despite the consideration of time-dependent force expression in iDSI calculations there are meaningful differences in their observations. This difference should be considered when tracking physical performance over time, where a fixed iDSI could be preferential to ensure consistency.
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.