Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801190›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Empirical Validation of a Streamlined Three-Repetition Squat Protocol Using MAI Motion.

Tanvi Verma, Mathew George, Yan Wen, Paul Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tanvi VermaOrthopaedics and Rehabilitation, MSK Doctors and Associates, Grantham, GBR.
Mathew GeorgeOrthopaedics, University of Leicester, Leicester, GBR.
Yan WenResearch, MSK Doctors, Sleaford, GBR.
Paul LeeTrauma and Orthopaedics, MSK Doctors, Sleaford, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

digital healthcarekinematicsknee biomechanicsmarkerlessmotion capturemovement analysis

Identifiers

PMID42801190
PMCPMC13615767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.