ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
In Vivo Measurement of Wrist Movements during the Dart-Throwing Motion Using Inertial Measurement Units.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- IMU- and Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Joint Kinematics: A Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Concurrent validity of inertial measurement units in range of motion measurements of upper extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Wearable technologies · 2024Review
- Editorial-Special Issue on "Sensor Technology for Enhancing Training and Performance in Sport".Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates the dart-throwing motion (DTM) by comparing an inertial measurement unit-based system previously validated for basic motion tasks with an optoelectronic motion capture system. The DTM is interesting as wrist movement during many activities of daily living occur in this movement plane, but the complex movement is difficult to assess clinically.
methodsTen healthy subjects were recorded while performing the DTM with their right wrist using inertial sensors and skin markers. Maximum range of motion obtained by the different systems and the mean absolute difference were calculated.
resultsIn the flexion-extension plane, both systems calculated a range of motion of 100° with mean absolute differences of 8°, while in the radial-ulnar deviation plane, a mean absolute difference of 17° and range of motion values of 48° for the optoelectronic system and 59° for the inertial measurement units were found.
conclusionsThis study shows the challenge of comparing results of different kinematic motion capture systems for complex movements while also highlighting inertial measurement units as promising for future clinical application in dynamic and coupled wrist movements. Possible sources of error and solutions are discussed.
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.