ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2025
Investigating the validity of low-cost technologies for the assessment of jumping-based performances in people with patellofemoral pain.
Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2025. 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
Background: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is prevalent across various age and activity groups and poses a risk for developing patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Since load on the patellofemoral joint is greatest during jumping manoeuvres, validating affordable measuring instruments to extract jumping-related variables is important for guiding rehabilitation. Objectives: To evaluate the validity of low-cost devices against 'gold standard' force plates during jumping and to quantify differences in kinematic variables between low-cost devices and across different groups (PFP vs. Control). Methods: A repeated-measures design of between- and within-subject factors was used. Thirty-two participants (Control: n=16; PFP: n=16) volunteered for the study. Single leg drop jump variables were validated using force plates and 3D motion capture (mocap) as the criterion standards against the MyJump2 and Tracker software applications as the reference standards. Results: Good-to-excellent correlations were evident across all variables when comparing the force plates to MyJump2 (r=0.83-0.97) and Tracker (r=0.83-0.89) applications. Tracker was not significantly different from force plates or mocap for jump height (p=0.130) and flight time (p=0.230), but overestimated contact time for both groups (control group [p<0.001] and PFP group [p=0.007]). MyJump2 was not significantly different from force plates regarding contact time in the PFP group (p=0.500) but showed significant differences for the other parameters (p<0.001). Conclusion: Both Tracker and MyJump2 applications show promise as alternatives to laboratory-grade equipment, with MyJump2 emerging as the top low-cost tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.