ArticlePloS one2026
The test-retest reliability and agreement between a fixed frame and belt-stabilised handheld dynamometer for isometric hip flexion and extension peak force measurement in recreational cyclists.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCycling performance is influenced by hip flexor and extensor muscle strength. While belt stabilised handheld dynamometers (B-HHD) are valid for measuring isometric hip muscle strength, fixed frame dynamometers are becoming popular, offering potentially better stability and reliability. However, the reliability of both devices has not been examined in cyclists. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability and agreement between a B-HHD (MicroFET2, Hoggan Scientific) and a fixed-frame dynamometer (ForceFrame (FF) Max, Vald Performance) for hip flexion and extension peak force measurement in cyclists.
methodsA test-retest design was used. Twenty-five recreational cyclists (age ± SD: 36.64 (±12.34) years; 22 males) were tested twice, approximately 72 hours apart. Three unilateral maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) of the hip flexors and extensors of each limb were performed, using the B-HHD and FF in a random order. Within and between session reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) 3.1 & 3.k. Standard error of measurements (SEM) and minimal detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. Agreement was assessed using 95% limits of agreement (LOA).
resultsFor hip flexion, within and between session reliability was good to excellent, and SEMs were similar (B-HHD ICCs = 0.77-0.93, SEMs = 14.25-22.71N (7.19-10.38%); FF ICCs = 0.77-0.95, SEMs = 7.80N-18.98N (3.47%-8.54%)). FF MDCs were lower within-session (21.61-39.48N (9.60-17.97%)) than B-HHD MDCs (39.50-62.95N (19.94-28.78%)), but similar between-sessions (FF MDCs = 41.25-52.61N (19.42-23.66%); B-HHD MDCs = 41.21N-48.95N (18.53-23.77%)). For hip extension, both devices demonstrated good to excellent reliability and SEMs were similar (B-HHD ICCs = 0.90-0.95, SEMs = 15.77-21.53N (7.38-9.96%); FF ICCs = 0.85-0.95, SEMs = 19.21-29.05N (7.82-11.78%) within and between sessions). All LOA exceeded a 20N acceptability threshold.
conclusionBoth devices are reliable in recreational cyclists, but large MDCs suggest that caution is needed when interpreting repeated measurements. Due to poor agreement, the devices are not interchangeable so should be considered device specific. In practice, our preliminary results suggest FF data cannot be compared with B-HHD data and vice versa, so the same device should be used for repeated measurements in this population.
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.