ArticlePloS one2026
Influence of vertical GPS sensor placement on criterion agreement and interchangeability of distance and speed measures.
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
This study evaluated agreement between PlayerTek™ 10 Hz GPS-derived total-distance and peak-speed measurements and practical field-based criterion measures and examined whether vertical sensor placement influenced agreement characteristics and measurement interchangeability. Following quality-control procedures, 758 paired observations were retained for analysis. Total-distance analyses included 533 paired observations from 55 participants collected during a modified team-sport simulation circuit, while peak-speed analyses included 225 paired observations from 68 participants during linear sprint testing. GPS units were positioned simultaneously at upper-back and mid-back locations. Agreement and measurement variability were assessed using established agreement-based statistical procedures, with secondary analyses evaluating placement equivalence and interchangeability. The upper-back placement demonstrated superior agreement with criterion measures compared with the mid-back placement. For total distance, upper-back measurements exhibited a small bias (0.57 m) and low variability (CV = 1.54%), whereas the mid-back placement demonstrated substantial systematic underestimation (-12.69 m), greater variability (CV = 4.18%), and poor agreement between placements. Equivalence testing confirmed that upper-back and mid-back placements were not interchangeable for total distance. For peak speed, upper-back measurements demonstrated stronger agreement with the criterion measure (ICC(A,1) = 0.864; CCC = 0.864) than the mid-back placement (ICC(A,1) = 0.770; CCC = 0.769), with smaller bias and lower variability. GPS-derived total-distance and peak-speed measurements demonstrated superior agreement characteristics when sensors were positioned at the manufacturer-recommended upper-back location. A small 10 cm inferior displacement of the sensor substantially altered total-distance measurements and reduced agreement with criterion measures, whereas peak-speed measurements were less affected. These findings highlight the importance of standardised sensor placement within applied athlete-monitoring environments.
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.