Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543747›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Trends Supporting the In-Field Use of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Sport Performance Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Valentina Camomilla, Elena Bergamini, Silvia Fantozzi, Giuseppe Vannozzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 233 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
233citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

233 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

173 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

4 authors.

Valentina CamomillaInteruniversity Centre of Bioengineering of the Human Neuromusculoskeletal System (BOHNES), University of Rome "Foro Italico", Piazza L. De Bosis 6, 00135 Rome, Italy. valentina.camomilla@uniroma4.it.ORCID 0000-0002-7452-120X
Elena BergaminiInteruniversity Centre of Bioengineering of the Human Neuromusculoskeletal System (BOHNES), University of Rome "Foro Italico", Piazza L. De Bosis 6, 00135 Rome, Italy. elena.bergamini@uniroma4.it.ORCID 0000-0002-9055-3981
Silvia FantozziDepartment of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering "Guglielmo Marconi", University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy. silvia.fantozzi@unibo.it.ORCID 0000-0002-0660-7204
Giuseppe VannozziInteruniversity Centre of Bioengineering of the Human Neuromusculoskeletal System (BOHNES), University of Rome "Foro Italico", Piazza L. De Bosis 6, 00135 Rome, Italy. giuseppe.vannozzi@uniroma4.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2359-6076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent technological developments have led to the production of inexpensive, non-invasive, miniature magneto-inertial sensors, ideal for obtaining sport performance measures during training or competition. This systematic review evaluates current evidence and the future potential of their use in sport performance evaluation. Articles published in English (April 2017) were searched in Web-of-Science, Scopus, Pubmed, and Sport-Discus databases. A keyword search of titles, abstracts and keywords which included studies using accelerometers, gyroscopes and/or magnetometers to analyse sport motor-tasks performed by athletes (excluding risk of injury, physical activity, and energy expenditure) resulted in 2040 papers. Papers and reference list screening led to the selection of 286 studies and 23 reviews. Information on sport, motor-tasks, participants, device characteristics, sensor position and fixing, experimental setting and performance indicators was extracted. The selected papers dealt with motor capacity assessment (51 papers), technique analysis (163), activity classification (19), and physical demands assessment (61). Focus was placed mainly on elite and sub-elite athletes (59%) performing their sport in-field during training (62%) and competition (7%). Measuring movement outdoors created opportunities in winter sports (8%), water sports (16%), team sports (25%), and other outdoor activities (27%). Indications on the reliability of sensor-based performance indicators are provided, together with critical considerations and future trends.

Indexed as

accelerometerathletebiomechanicsgyroscopemagneto-inertial sensorsMEMSmotion analysisperformance assessmentsports

Identifiers

PMID29543747
PMCPMC5877384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.