Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29476427›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Wearable Inertial Sensor Systems for Lower Limb Exercise Detection and Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Martin O'Reilly, Brian Caulfield, Tomas Ward, William Johnston, Cailbhe Doherty

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Martin O'ReillySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. martin.oreilly@insight-centre.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2425-5393
Brian CaulfieldSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-9587
Tomas WardInsight Centre for Data Analytics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-6173-6607
William JohnstonSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0525-6577
Cailbhe DohertySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5284-856X

Funding

Irish Research Council EPSPG/2013/574Science Foundation Ireland SFI/12/EC/2289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalysis of lower limb exercises is traditionally completed with four distinct methods: (1) 3D motion capture; (2) depth-camera-based systems; (3) visual analysis from a qualified exercise professional; and (4) self-assessment. Each method is associated with a number of limitations.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to synthesise and evaluate studies which have investigated the capacity for inertial measurement unit (IMU) technologies to assess movement quality in lower limb exercises. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of studies identified through the databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus was conducted. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles written in English and published in the last 10 years which investigated an IMU system for the analysis of repetition-based targeted lower limb exercises were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsThe quality of included studies was measured using an adapted version of the STROBE assessment criteria for cross-sectional studies. The studies were categorised into three groupings: exercise detection, movement classification or measurement validation. Each study was then qualitatively summarised.

resultsFrom the 2452 articles that were identified with the search strategies, 47 papers are included in this review. Twenty-six of the 47 included studies were deemed as being of high quality.

conclusionsWearable inertial sensor systems for analysing lower limb exercises is a rapidly growing field of research. Research over the past 10 years has predominantly focused on validating measurements that the systems produce and classifying users' exercise quality. There have been very few user evaluation studies and no clinical trials in this field to date.

Indexed as

ExerciseLower ExtremityWearable Electronic DevicesExercise TherapyHumans

Identifiers

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.