ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
A Comparative Evaluation of Inertial Sensors for Gait and Jump Analysis.
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 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gait Analysis as a Measure of Physical Performance in Older Adults with Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
- Enhancing Real-World Fall Detection Using Commodity Devices: A Systematic Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Potential Role of Wearable Inertial Sensors in Laboring Women with Walking Epidural Analgesia.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Gait Alteration in Individual with Limb Loss: The Role of Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gait and jump anomalies are often used as indicators to identify the presence and state of disorders that involve motor symptoms. Physical tests are often performed in specialized laboratories, which offer reliable and accurate results, but require long and costly analyses performed by specialized personnel. The use of inertial sensors for gait and jump evaluation offers an easy-to-use low-cost alternative, potentially applicable by the patients themselves at home. In this paper, we compared three inertial measurement units that are available on the market by means of well-known standardized tests for the evaluation of gait and jump behavior. The aim of the study was to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each of the tested sensors, considered in different tests, by comparing data collected on two healthy subjects. Data were processed to identify the phases of the movement and the possible inaccuracies of each sensor. The analysis showed that some of the considered inertial units could be reliably used to identify the gait and jump phases and could be employed to detect anomalies, potentially suggesting the presence of disorders.
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.