Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35957976›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2022

Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system: A validation study.

Jakob Henschke, Hannes Kaplick, Monique Wochatz, Tilman Engel

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Erratum.Health science reports · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jakob HenschkeDepartment for sports medicine and sports orthopedics, University Outpatient Clinic University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5940-7380
Hannes KaplickDepartment for sports medicine and sports orthopedics, University Outpatient Clinic University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany.
Monique WochatzDepartment for sports medicine and sports orthopedics, University Outpatient Clinic University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany.
Tilman EngelDepartment for sports medicine and sports orthopedics, University Outpatient Clinic University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and  Aims: Wearable inertial sensors may offer additional kinematic parameters of the shoulder compared to traditional instruments such as goniometers when elaborate and time-consuming data processing procedures are undertaken. However, in clinical practice simple-real time motion analysis is required to improve clinical reasoning. Therefore, the aim was to assess the criterion validity between a portable "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system (IMU) and optical motion (Mocap) for measuring kinematic parameters during active shoulder movements. Methods: 24 healthy participants (9 female, 15 male, age 29 ± 4 years, height 177 ± 11 cm, weight 73 ± 14 kg) were included. Range of motion (ROM), total range of motion (TROM), peak and mean angular velocity of both systems were assessed during simple (abduction/adduction, horizontal flexion/horizontal extension, vertical flexion/extension, and external/internal rotation) and complex shoulder movements. Criterion validity was determined using intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC), root mean square error (RMSE) and Bland and Altmann analysis (bias; upper and lower limits of agreement). Results: ROM and TROM analysis revealed inconsistent validity during simple (ICC: 0.040-0.733, RMSE: 9.7°-20.3°, bias: 1.2°-50.7°) and insufficient agreement during complex shoulder movements (ICC: 0.104-0.453, RMSE: 10.1°-23.3°, bias: 1.0°-55.9°). Peak angular velocity (ICC: 0.202-0.865, RMSE: 14.6°/s-26.7°/s, bias: 10.2°/s-29.9°/s) and mean angular velocity (ICC: 0.019-0.786, RMSE:6.1°/s-34.2°/s, bias: 1.6°/s-27.8°/s) were inconsistent. Conclusions: The "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system showed overall insufficient agreement with the gold standard. Further development of commercial IMU-software-solutions may increase measurement accuracy and permit their integration into everyday clinical practice.

Indexed as

diagnostic techniques and procedureskinematicsshoulder jointvalidation studywearable devices

Identifiers

PMID35957976
PMCPMC9364332

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.