ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Agreement of Clinical Grade and Laboratory Grade Force Plates for Countermovement Jump Metrics in Youth Athletes.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 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.
- Concurrent validity of a dual three-dimensional portable force-plate system against a laboratory force platform across vertical, anteroposterior and mediolateral loading tasks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent technological advances have led to the development of user-friendly force plate systems that provide clinicians with the ability to analyze movement with precision that was previously only available within a biomechanics laboratory. While this development is promising, there is limited evidence supporting the concurrent validity of the range of variables provided by these devices, making it difficult for clinicians to interpret how values obtained within a clinical environment compare to published research. Purpose: To compare the concurrent validity of specific performance metrics obtained during a countermovement (CMJ) jump between a clinical grade force plate system and a laboratory grade system. Study Design: Laboratory Based Cohort Study. Methods: Sixty youth basketball athletes performed a CMJ jump on a clinical grade and a laboratory grade force plate system. Raw data from each device was utilized to calculate the following measures: jump height, peak ground reaction force (GRF), eccentric rate of force development (RFD), and concentric and eccentric impulse. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests evaluated differences between measures. Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman plots analyzed the relationship and accuracy between devices across all measures. Results: There were no statistically significant differences and good agreement between devices for jump height, peak GRF, and eccentric RFD (p>0.05, percent difference range -3.35% to 6.14%). Other measures of jump performance, including concentric RFD measures, eccentric impulse, and concentric impulse, were moderately to poorly correlated (R-value range 0.296-0.447) and significantly different ( Conclusion: Measurements between the clinical grade and laboratory grade force plates for jump height, peak ground reaction force, and eccentric RFD were comparable and showed good agreement. Clinicians should exercise caution when comparing data related to impulse measures between these systems. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.