ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Concurrent validity of a dual three-dimensional portable force-plate system against a laboratory force platform across vertical, anteroposterior and mediolateral loading tasks.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Portable three-dimensional (3D) force-plates are increasingly used for field measurements of sport performance. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the concurrent validity of a dual portable 3D force-plate system (KINVENT 3D-Deltas) against a single laboratory force-plate (AMTI) for the vertical, anteroposterior (AP), and mediolateral (ML) force components and for center-of-pressure (CoP) outcomes. Methods: Ten physically active participants performed four tasks, each loading a specific axis: a countermovement jump (CMJ; vertical), a forward jump (AP), and a lateral jump (ML). Additionally, a quiet-stance trial was performed to validate CoP kinematics. The AMTI force-plate was mounted on top of the 3D-Deltas so that both systems recorded each trial simultaneously. Agreement was quantified with mean bias and 95% limits of agreement, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; two-way random effects, absolute agreement, single measures), Pearson correlation, ordinary-least-squares regression, the root-mean-square error and paired-samples t-tests. Results: Agreement for the primary force component of each task was excellent (CMJ: peak vertical force, ICC = 0.999; forward jump: peak AP force, ICC = 0.994; lateral jump: peak ML force, ICC = 0.999; each with a mean bias below 2.5% of the criterion). CoP excursion outcomes (AP range, ML range, and 95% confidence ellipse area) showed good-to-excellent agreement (ICC = 0.966-0.998). Secondary low-amplitude off-axis force components showed larger relative error. Discussion: The KINVENT 3D-Deltas system is a valid surrogate for a laboratory force-plate when measuring the principal force component of each task and the principal CoP excursion outcomes, supporting its use for field performance assessments.
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.