Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31550296›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Agreement between the spatiotemporal gait parameters from two different wearable devices and high-speed video analysis.

Felipe García-Pinillos, Pedro Á Latorre-Román, Víctor M Soto-Hermoso, Juan A Párraga-Montilla, Antonio Pantoja-Vallejo, Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo, Luis E Roche-Seruendo

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Gait Variability at Different Walking Speeds.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Research progress on wearable physiological parameter monitoring and its clinical applications].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Felipe García-PinillosDepartment of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-7518-8234
Pedro Á Latorre-RománDepartment of Corporal Expression, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain.
Víctor M Soto-HermosoSport and Health University Research Center (iMUDS), University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Juan A Párraga-MontillaDepartment of Corporal Expression, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain.
Antonio Pantoja-VallejoDepartment of Pedagogy, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain.
Rodrigo Ramírez-CampilloLaboratory of Human Performance, Quality of Life and Wellness Research Group, Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile.
Luis E Roche-SeruendoUniversidad San Jorge, Villanueva de Gallego, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8492-9244

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of two different inertial measurement units for measuring spatiotemporal parameters during running on a treadmill, by comparing data with a high-speed video analysis (VA) at 1,000 Hz. Forty-nine endurance runners performed a running protocol on a treadmill at comfortable velocity (i.e., 3.25 ± 0.36 m.s-1). Those wearable devices (i.e., Stryd™ and RunScribe™ systems) were compared to a high-speed VA, as a reference system for measuring spatiotemporal parameters (i.e. contact time [CT], flight time [FT], step frequency [SF] and step length [SL]) during running at comfortable velocity. The pairwise comparison revealed that the Stryd™ system underestimated CT (5.2%, p < 0.001) and overestimated FT (15.1%, p < 0.001) compared to the VA; whereas the RunScribe™ system underestimated CT (2.3%, p = 0.009). No significant differences were observed in SF and SL between the wearable devices and VA. The intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) revealed an almost perfect association between both systems and high-speed VA (ICC > 0.81). The Bland-Altman plots revealed heteroscedasticity of error (r2 = 0.166) for the CT from the Stryd™ system, whereas no heteroscedasticity of error (r2 < 0.1) was revealed in the rest of parameters. In conclusion, the results obtained suggest that both foot pods are valid tools for measuring spatiotemporal parameters during running on a treadmill at comfortable velocity. If the limits of agreement of both systems are considered in respect to high-speed VA, the RunScribe™ seems to be a more accurate system for measuring temporal parameters and SL than the Stryd™ system.

Indexed as

Spatio-Temporal AnalysisWearable Electronic DevicesAdultExercise TestFemaleGaitHumansMaleRunningVideo RecordingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31550296
PMCPMC6759187

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.