ArticleJSAMS plus2026
Comparing indoor tracking of golf ball and club metrics: Consistency and absolute agreement of the Flightscope Mevo+ and Trackman 4 launch monitors.
Article in JSAMS plus, 2026. 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.
- Combining Multisensory Cueing and Velocity-Based Training to Enhance Shot Put Performance in an F12 Para-Athlete: A Case Report.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the Flightscope Mevo + launch monitor against a previously validated system (Trackman 4) during full golf swings in an indoor setting. Methods: Mevo+ and Trackman 4 were compared concurrently for driver (n = 118, 118, 174 shots, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) reported consistency and absolute agreement. Bland-Altman plots reported limits of agreement. Results: Moderate to excellent consistency was reported for all values for driver (ICC = 0.66-0.996), 7-iron (ICC = 0.50-0.996) and pitching wedge (ICC = 0.55-1.00) except angle of attack which was poor for both 7-iron and pitching wedge (ICC = 0.06 & 0.03, respectively). For absolute agreement, Mevo + demonstrated moderate to excellent levels for most driver (ICC range = 0.58-0.98), 7-iron (ICC range = 0.83-0.94) and pitching wedge (ICC range = 0.77-0.999) variables. Driver swing plane (ICC absolute = 0.24), 7-iron angle of attack, clubhead speed, dynamic loft and spin rate (ICC absolute = 0.02, 0.44, 0.23, 0.49, 0.42, respectively) and pitching wedge angle of attack, dynamic loft, and swing plane (ICC absolute = 0.01, 0.25, 0.43, respectively) had poor agreement. Conclusion: Mevo+ is consistent with Trackman 4 for all variables except angle of attack. It does however provide different absolute values, but usually in a consistent, systematic manner, across a number of variables. Coaches, club fitters, golfers, and scientists should be aware of these systematic differences when attempting to compare performance across launch monitors or when solely using the Mevo + system to aid performance, club building and fitting, or for research purposes.
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.