ArticlePeerJ2026
Reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer for a bilateral standing press exercise at intensities of 30% and 60% of isometric peak force in trained women.
Article in PeerJ, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Determining the reliability of exercise instruments and protocols in the fields of health and sports performance is of great interest due to their close relationship with monitoring and decision-making in athletes. Studies in trained women are limited, and more evidence is needed on performance variables and the reliability of exercise protocols. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of an exercise protocol for determining mean muscle strength, mean velocity, and mean power during the bilateral standing press (BSP) in trained women. Methods: Sixteen trained women (age = 20.0 ± 2.30 years; body mass = 67.63 ± 6.68 kg; height = 1.65 ± 0.06 m) participated in this repeated-measures study. Absolute reliability was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV), and relative reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for a bilateral standing press (BSP) exercise protocol performed at intensities of 30% and 60% of isometric peak force (IPF). Results: Mean muscle strength showed acceptable absolute reliability and extremely high relative reliability at both 30% IPF (CV = 6.51%; ICC = 0.94) and 60% IPF (CV = 5.03%; ICC = 0.97). Mean velocity showed extremely high relative reliability at 60% IPF (ICC = 0.92), but its absolute reliability was not acceptable at either 30% IPF (CV = 10.10%; ICC = 0.75) or 60% IPF (CV = 14.16%; ICC = 0.92). Mean power also exceeded the predefined CV threshold at 30% IPF (CV = 11.16%; ICC = 0.85) and at 60% IPF (CV = 14.35%; ICC = 0.89). Conclusions: These findings suggest that the BSP protocol using functional electromechanical dynamometry is reliable for assessing mean muscle strength in trained women. However, mean velocity and mean power should be interpreted with caution, as their absolute reliability did not reach the predefined threshold of acceptable reliability.
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.