ArticleProsthetics and orthotics international2020
Accuracy and repeatability of smartphone sensors for measuring shank-to-vertical angle.
Article in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Awareness, Framework-Based Proficiency, and Clinical Implementation of Ankle Foot Orthosis-Footwear Combination (AFO-FC) Tuning: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of a Smartphone Device and Clinical Tools for Thoracic Spine Mobility Assessments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Smartphone Inclinometry Is a Valid and Reliable Tool for Measuring Frontal Plane Tibial Alignment in Healthy and Osteoarthritic Knees.Physical therapy · 2021Article
- Assessment of the Shank-to-Vertical Angle While Changing Heel Heights Using a Single Inertial Measurement Unit in Individuals with Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury Wearing an Ankle-Foot-Orthosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessments of human movement are clinically important. However, accurate measurements are often unavailable due to the need for expensive equipment or intensive processing. For orthotists and therapists, shank-to-vertical angle is one critical measure used to assess gait and guide prescriptions. Smartphone-based sensors may provide a widely available platform to expand access to this measurement.
objectivesAssess accuracy and repeatability of smartphone-based measurement of shank-to-vertical angle compared to marker-based 3D motion analysis. STUDY
designRepeated-measures.
methodsFour licensed clinicians (two physical therapists and two orthotists) measured shank-to-vertical angle during gait with a smartphone attached to the anterior or lateral shank surface of unimpaired adults. We compared the shank-to-vertical angle calculated from the smartphone's inertial measurement unit to marker-based measurements. Each clinician completed three sessions/day on two days with each participant to assess repeatability.
resultsAverage absolute differences in shank-to-vertical angle measured with a smartphone versus marker-based 3D motion analysis during gait were 0.67 ± 0.25° and 4.89 ± 0.72°, with anterior or lateral smartphone positions, respectively. The inter- and intra-day repeatability of shank-to-vertical angle were within 2° for both smartphone positions.
conclusionsSmartphone sensors can be used to measure shank-to-vertical angle with high accuracy and repeatability during unimpaired gait, providing a widely available tool for quantitative gait assessments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Smartphone sensors demonstrated high accuracy and repeatability for monitoring shank-to-vertical angle during gait. Measurement of shank-to-vertical angle from the front of the shank was more accurate than the side of the shank. Smartphones may expand access to quantitative assessments of gait.
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.