Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35759130›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2022

Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Units on Lower Extremity Kinematics During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ziwei Zeng, Yue Liu, Xiaoyue Hu, Meihua Tang, Lin Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Ziwei ZengSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Yue LiuSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyue HuSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Meihua TangSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Lin WangSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China. wanglin@sus.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3057-3742

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInertial measurement units (IMUs) are useful in monitoring running and alerting running-related injuries in various sports settings. However, the quantitative summaries of the validity and reliability of the measurements from IMUs during running are still lacking. The purpose of this review was to investigate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of IMUs for measuring gait spatiotemporal outcomes and lower extremity kinematics of health adults during running.

methodsPubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) evaluated the validity or reliability of measurements from IMUs, (2) measured specific kinematic outcomes, (3) compared measurements using IMUs with those obtained using reference systems, (4) collected data during running, (5) assessed human beings and (6) were published in English. Eligible articles were reviewed using a modified quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of validity and reliability.

resultsTwenty-five articles were included in the systematic review, and data from 12 were pooled for meta-analysis. The methodological quality of studies ranged from low to moderate. Concurrent validity is excellent for stride length (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.937 (0.859, 0.972), p < 0.001), step frequency (ICC (95% CI) = 0.926 (0.896, 0.948), r (95% CI) = 0.989 (0.957, 0.997), p  < 0.001) and ankle angle in the sagittal plane (r (95% CI) = 0.939 (0.544, 0.993), p = 0.002), moderate to excellent for stance time (ICC (95% CI) = 0.664 (0.354, 0.845), r (95% CI) = 0.811 (0.701, 0.881), p < 0.001) and good for running speed (ICC (95% CI) = 0.848 (0.523, 0.958), p = 0.0003). The summary Fisher's Z value of flight time was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). Similarly, the stance time showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.954 (0.903, 0.978), p < 0.001) and step frequency showed good test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.896 (0.837, 0.933), p < 0.001).

conclusionsFindings in the current review support IMUs measurement of running gait spatiotemporal parameters, but IMUs measurement of running kinematics on lower extremity joints needs to be reported with caution in healthy adults.

trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021279395.

Indexed as

Inertial measurement unitKinematicsReliabilityRunningValidity

Identifiers

PMID35759130
PMCPMC9237201

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.