ArticleHealth science reports2022
Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system: A validation study.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conversion of Upper-Limb Inertial Measurement Unit Data to Joint Angles: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- The Reliability and Validity of an Instrumented Device for Tracking the Shoulder Range of Motion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multi-Planar Cervical Motion Dataset: IMU Measurements and Goniometer.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Using a wearable system combining inertial and force sensing for simultaneous detection of limb motion and grasping actions in the workplace.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- Trends and Innovations in Wearable Technology for Motor Rehabilitation, Prediction, and Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Novel IMU-Based System for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Risk Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preliminary Technical Validation of LittleBeats™: A Multimodal Sensing Platform to Capture Cardiac Physiology, Motion, and Vocalizations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Concurrent validity of inertial measurement units in range of motion measurements of upper extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Wearable technologies · 2024Review
- Assessment of an IMU-Based Experimental Set-Up for Upper Limb Motion in Obese Subjects.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Shoulder Range of Motion Measurement Using Inertial Measurement Unit-Concurrent Validity and Reliability.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Upper-Limb Kinematic Behavior and Performance Fatigability of Elderly Participants Performing an Isometric Task: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Community mobility and participation assessment of manual wheelchair users: a review of current techniques and challenges.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
- Erratum.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system: A validation study.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2023
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.