力量训练中便携式商用测速设备速度测量的效度:系统综述和荟萃分析  

Validity of commercial portable velocity testing devices in strength training:a systematic review and Meta-analysis

作　　者：廖开放[1,2] 张国超 顾正秋 黎涌明 Liao Kaifang;Zhang Guochao;Gu Zhengqiu;Li Yongming(School of Exercise Healthy,Guangdong Vocational Institute of Sports,Guangzhou 510663,Guangdong Province,China;School of Physical Education and Sport Training,Shanghai University of Sport,Shanghai 200438,China;China Institute of Sport Science,Beijing 100061,China)

机构地区：[1]广东体育职业技术学院体育健康学院,广东省广州市510663 [2]上海体育学院体育教育训练学院,上海市200438 [3]国家体育总局体育科学研究所,北京市100061

出　　处：《中国组织工程研究》2023年第14期2266-2275,共10页Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research

基　　金：国家重点研发计划“科技冬奥”重点专项课题(2018FF0300901),项目负责人:黎涌明。

摘　　要：目的:采用系统综述和荟萃分析评价力量训练中不同便携式商用测速设备测量速度的效度差异。方法:检索中国知网、Web of Science和Pub Med数据库中与目的相关文章。采用Appraisal of Study Design for Psychometric Articles量表对纳入的文献进行质量评估。通过R语言,采用固定效应和随机效应模型,利用效度指标皮尔森相关系数(r)对不同类型测速设备进行荟萃分析。结果:(1)总计44篇文献纳入定性分析,16篇文献纳入定量的荟萃分析,纳入的研究涉及26款不同的测速设备,文献质量总体评价为中等。(2)定性研究发现:拉线测速和光电摄像类设备效度最高,移动端APP和加速度计类设备次之;设备在固定轨迹器械中的效度高于自由重量。(3)荟萃分析结果发现:拉线测速类设备Gym Aware在自由重量下测量不同强度的平均速度(低强度:r=0.98,95%CI:0.95-0.99;中等强度:r=0.98,95%CI:0.95-0.99;高强度:r=0.98,95%CI:0.96-0.99)和峰值速度(低强度:r=0.99,95%CI:0.97-0.99;中等强度:r=0.98,95%CI:0.97-0.99;高强度:r=0.95,95%CI:0.97-0.99)与金标准具有正相关性(P=0.001);加速度计类测速设备Push在自由重量下测量不同强度的平均速度(低强度:r=0.69,95%CI:0.49-0.82;中等强度:r=0.69,95%CI:0.37-0.86;高强度:r=0.48,95%CI:0.21-0.68)和峰值速度(低强度:r=0.71,95%CI:0.52-0.83;中等强度:r=0.82,95%CI:0.69-0.89;高强度:r=0.68,95%CI:0.37-0.85)与金标准也具有正相关性(P=0.001)。结论:现有的研究结果数据证实,拉线测速类设备和光电摄像类设备的效度最高,移动端APP类的效度次之,加速度计类设备效度最低。建议在进行力量训练速度测量中采用拉线测速类和光电摄像类设备,避免使用加速度计类设备。OBJECTIVE:To assess the validity of different commercial portable velocity testing devices in strength training by systematic and Meta-analysis method.METHODS:Related articles were searched in Web of Science,PubMed,and CNKI databases.“Appraisal of Study Design for Psychometric Articles”was used as a scale to evaluate the quality of the included studies.In both fixed and random effect models,the Pearson correlated coefficient(r)was aggregated by R language to conduct a Meta-analysis of different types of speed measurement devices.RESULTS:A total of 44 and 16 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis,respectively.The general quality of included studies was moderate.Twenty-six brands of velocity testing devices were involved.Qualitative findings in validity:line position transducers and video-based devices<iPhone APP and accelerators,Smith machine>free weight.Quantitative findings in validity:GymAware had high validity for measuring mean velocity[low intensity:r=0.98,95%confidence interval(CI):0.95-0.99;medium intensity:r=0.98,95%CI:0.95-0.99;high intensity:r=0.98,95%CI:0.96-0.99]and peak velocity(low intensity:r=0.99,95%CI:0.97-0.99;medium intensity:r=0.98,95%CI:0.97-0.99;high intensity:r=0.95,95%CI:0.97-0.99)in free weight,with a positive correlation with the gold standard(P=0.001).Push had poor validity for measuring mean velocity(low intensity:r=0.69,95%CI:0.49-0.82;medium intensity:r=0.69,95%CI:0.37-0.86;high intensity:r=0.48,95%CI:0.21-0.68)and peak velocity(low intensity:r=0.71,95%CI:0.52-0.83;medium intensity:r=0.82,95%CI:0.69-0.89;high intensity:r=0.68,95%CI:0.37-0.85)in free weight,with a positive correlation with the gold standard(P=0.001).CONCLUSION:Existing evidence has confirmed that line position transducer and video-based device have the highest validity,iPhone APP takes the second place,and accelerators are poor in validity.High-valid line position transducers and video-based devices should be applied in velocity-based training rather than accelerators.

关 键 词：力量训练 基于速度的力量训练 肌肉骨骼健康 速度测量 负荷 拉线测速 加速度计 效度 

分 类 号：R459.9[医药卫生—治疗学] R318[医药卫生—临床医学] R319