ArticleCureus2026
Empirical Validation of a Streamlined Three-Repetition Squat Protocol Using MAI Motion.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MAI Motion is a motion capture system designed to assess lower limb biomechanics during functional movements such as the squat. Determining how many repetitions are needed to obtain consistent and comparable kinematic measurements is critical for balancing data quality and participant burden. This study evaluates whether three repetitions (3×) of the squat test provide comparable kinematic data to five repetitions (5×). 3D videos of healthy adult participants (n=10) performing 5× squat movements were captured using MAI Motion. Primary measurements were the mean values of each joint angle and the coefficient of variation (CV). Statistical comparisons (paired t-tests or non-parametric equivalents) determined that differences in mean values or CV existed between 3× and 5×. Analysis revealed minimal differences in mean angles between 3× and 5×. Variability, assessed via CV, showed no clinically meaningful differences (p<0.05). Although ankle angle and knee and hip abduction had higher CV values than other metrics, 3× and 5× performed similarly. Participants reported that 3× required less effort than 5×, implying a practical advantage for clinical or research settings. These findings validate that a 3× squat may capture biomechanical data comparable to a 5× protocol using the MAI Motion system. Reducing repetitions could possibly lessen participant fatigue while preserving the consistency of kinematic outputs, making 3× a pragmatic standard for most populations.
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.