Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33186363›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Clinicians' perspectives on inertial measurement units in clinical practice.

François Routhier, Noémie C Duclos, Émilie Lacroix, Josiane Lettre, Elizabeth Turcotte, Nathalie Hamel, François Michaud, Cyril Duclos, Philippe S Archambault, Laurent J Bouyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Gait analysis methods in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

François RouthierDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5458-6233
Noémie C DuclosHandicap Activity Cognition Health Team-U1219 BPH, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1579-9823
Émilie LacroixCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Josiane LettreCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Elizabeth TurcotteDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Nathalie HamelIntRoLab-Laboratoire de Robotique Intelligente/Interactive/Intégrée/Interdisciplinaire, Institut Interdisciplinaire d'Innovation Technologique, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
François MichaudIntRoLab-Laboratoire de Robotique Intelligente/Interactive/Intégrée/Interdisciplinaire, Institut Interdisciplinaire d'Innovation Technologique, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Cyril DuclosSchool of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Philippe S ArchambaultSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Laurent J BouyerDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2034-4516
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CAJewish Rehabilitation Hospital · CAUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been increasingly popular in rehabilitation research. However, despite their accessibility and potential advantages, their uptake and acceptance by health professionals remain a big challenge. The development of an IMU-based clinical tool must bring together engineers, researchers and clinicians. This study is part of a developmental process with the investigation of clinicians' perspectives about IMUs. Clinicians from four rehabilitation centers were invited to a 30-minute presentation on IMUs. Then, two one-hour focus groups were conducted with volunteer clinicians in each rehabilitation center on: 1) IMUs and their clinical usefulness, and 2) IMUs data analysis and visualization interface. Fifteen clinicians took part in the first focus groups. They expressed their thoughts on: 1) categories of variables that would be useful to measure with IMUs in clinical practice, and 2) desired characteristics of the IMUs. Twenty-three clinicians participated to the second focus groups, discussing: 1) functionalities, 2) display options, 3) clinical data reported and associated information, and 4) data collection duration. Potential influence of IMUs on clinical practice and added value were discussed in both focus groups. Clinicians expressed positive opinions about the use of IMUs, but their expectations were high before considering using IMUs in their practice.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansRehabilitation CentersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33186363
PMCPMC7665628
OpenAlexW3102740149

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.