ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
From Physiology to Practice: Validation of Eccentric Velocity Monitoring Using an Optoelectronic System.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate monitoring of eccentric phase velocity is needed to support velocity-based training (VBT), yet field-valid tools for multi-joint exercises are scarce. This study evaluated the concurrent validity and reliability of an optoelectronic device to quantify eccentric phase velocity during the Smith machine back squat.
methodsA total of 20 resistance-trained men completed two sessions and performed three repetitions at three submaximal loads (20, 50, and 70 kg). Eccentric mean velocity and peak velocity (Vmax) were recorded simultaneously using PowerTrack
resultsAgreement between devices was very high for Vmax (slope ≈ 1.00; CCC = 0.95), with a small constant bias. Eccentric mean velocity showed proportional bias under higher velocity conditions, whereas overall concordance remained high (CCC = 0.95). Inter-session reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.87-0.96), with low SEM values for eccentric velocity metrics.
conclusionsPowerTrack
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.