ArticleJournal of biomechanics2019
Measuring clinically relevant knee motion with a self-calibrated wearable sensor.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Wearable Devices to Augment Traditional Measurements of Postoperative Outcomes Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: Systematic Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Review
- Gait-to-Contact (G2C): A Novel Deep Learning Framework to Predict Total Knee Replacement Wear from Gait Patterns.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Fusion of Wearable Kinetic and Kinematic Sensors to Estimate Triceps Surae Work during Outdoor Locomotion on Slopes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Wearable Tendon Kinetics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- A Nonproprietary Movement Analysis System (MoJoXlab) Based on Wearable Inertial Measurement Units Applicable to Healthy Participants and Those With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Across a Range of Complex Tasks: Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Low-cost sensors provide a unique opportunity to continuously monitor patient progress during rehabilitation; however, these sensors have yet to demonstrate the fidelity and lack the calibration paradigms necessary to be viable tools for clinical research. The purpose of this study was to validate a low-cost wearable sensor that accurately measured peak knee extension during clinical exercises and needed no additional equipment for calibration. Sagittal plane knee motion was quantified using a 9-axis motion sensor and directly compared to motion capture data. The motion sensor measured the field strength of a strong earth magnet secured to the distal femur, which was correlated with knee angle during a simple calibration process. Peak knee motions and kinematic patterns were compared with motion capture data using paired t-tests and cross correlation, respectively. Peak extension values during seated knee extensions were accurate within 5 degrees across all subjects (root mean square error: 2.6 degrees, P = 0.29). Knee flexion during gait strongly correlated (0.84 ≤ r
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.