ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Proposal for Post Hoc Quality Control in Instrumented Motion Analysis Using Markerless Motion Capture: Development and Usability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. 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.
- Anchor-based evaluation of digital motor biomarkers from a 2-year observation in 100 patients with multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2025Observational
- Progression events defined by home-based assessment of motor function in multiple sclerosis: protocol of a prospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- RGB-Depth Camera-Based Assessment of Motor Capacity: Normative Data for Six Standardized Motor Tasks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstrumented assessment of motor symptoms has emerged as a promising extension to the clinical assessment of several movement disorders. The use of mobile and inexpensive technologies such as some markerless motion capture technologies is especially promising for large-scale application but has not transitioned into clinical routine to date. A crucial step on this path is to implement standardized, clinically applicable tools that identify and control for quality concerns.
objectiveThe main goal of this study comprises the development of a systematic quality control (QC) procedure for data collected with markerless motion capture technology and its experimental implementation to identify specific quality concerns and thereby rate the usability of recordings.
methodsWe developed a post hoc QC pipeline that was evaluated using a large set of short motor task recordings of healthy controls (2010 recordings from 162 subjects) and people with multiple sclerosis (2682 recordings from 187 subjects). For each of these recordings, 2 raters independently applied the pipeline. They provided overall usability decisions and identified technical and performance-related quality concerns, which yielded respective proportions of their occurrence as a main result.
resultsThe approach developed here has proven user-friendly and applicable on a large scale. Raters' decisions on recording usability were concordant in 71.5%-92.3% of cases, depending on the motor task. Furthermore, 39.6%-85.1% of recordings were concordantly rated as being of satisfactory quality whereas in 5.0%-26.3%, both raters agreed to discard the recording.
conclusionsWe present a QC pipeline that seems feasible and useful for instant quality screening in the clinical setting. Results confirm the need of QC despite using standard test setups, testing protocols, and operator training for the employed system and by extension, for other task-based motor assessment technologies. Results of the QC process can be used to clean existing data sets, optimize quality assurance measures, as well as foster the development of automated QC approaches and therefore improve the overall reliability of kinematic data sets.
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.