A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Reliability and validity of the Zebris FDM-THQ instrumented treadmill during running trials. | LitMetric

Little is known about the reliability, validity and smallest detectable differences of selected kinetic and temporal variables recorded by the Zebris FDM-THQ instrumented treadmill especially during running. Twenty male participants (age = 31.9 years (±5.6), height = 1.81 m (±0.08), mass = 80.2 kg (±9.5), body mass index = 24.53 kg/m (±2.53)) walked (5 km/h) and ran (10 and 15 km/h) on an instrumented treadmill, wearing running shoes fitted with Pedar-X insoles. A test-double retest protocol was conducted over two consecutive days. Maximal vertical force (F), contact time (CT) and flight time (FT) data from 10 consecutive steps were collected. Within- and between-day reliability, smallest detectable differences (SDD) and validity (95% limits of agreement (LOA)) were calculated. ICC values for the Zebris for Fmax were acceptable (ICC ≥ 0.7) while CT and FT reliability indices were predominantly good (ICC ≥ 0.8) to excellent (ICC ≥ 0.9). The Zebris significantly underestimated Fmax when compared with the Pedar-X. The 95% LOA increased with speed. SDD ranged between 96 N and 169 N for Fmax, 0.017s and 0.055s for CT and 0.021s and 0.026s for FT. In conclusion, Zebris reliability was acceptable to excellent for the variables examined, but inferior in comparison with Pedar-X. With increased running speeds, a bias effect (underestimation) existed for the Zebris compared with Pedar-X.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2018.1452966DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

instrumented treadmill
12
reliability validity
8
zebris fdm-thq
8
fdm-thq instrumented
8
treadmill running
8
smallest detectable
8
detectable differences
8
compared pedar-x
8
zebris
6
reliability
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!