ArticlePloS one2022
Validation of the RunScribe inertial measurement unit for walking gait measurement.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Power-Based Multicomponent Training, Pelvic Floor Muscle Activation Instructions, and Psychoeducation for Urinary Incontinence, Balance and Fear of Falling in Older Women (FIRE-WOMEN): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Do Commercially Available Insoles Meaningfully Change Reported Comfort and Biomechanics During One Day of Wear?Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Speed-Related Running Mechanics Using IMU in Runners.Translational sports medicine · 2026Article
- Limited Interchangeability of Smartwatches and Lace-Mounted IMUs for Running Gait Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of foam-only versus carbon-plated advanced footwear technology spikes in distance runners.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Validity of common body temperature sites and gait parameters during a heat tolerance test.Temperature (Austin, Tex.) · 2025Article
- Concurrent Validity and Relative Reliability of the RunScribe™ System for the Assessment of Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters During Walking.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Ramp protocol: Uncovering individual differences in walking to an auditory beat using TeensyStep.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impacts of Wearable Resistance Placement on Running Efficiency Assessed by Wearable Sensors: A Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigating the Effects of Visual Feedback on Muscle Activity, Heart Rate, RPE, and Perceptions of Performance in Ballet Dancers.International journal of exercise science · 2024Article
- Can a shoe-mounted IMU identify the effects of orthotics in ways comparable to gait laboratory measurements?Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
- Monitoring Mobility at Home: The GAIT-HUB Sensor-Based Protocol for Remote Gait Analysis.Digital biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of portable gait measurement systems in research is appealing to collect real-world data at low-cost, low participant burden, and without requirement for dedicated lab space. Most commercially available inertial measurement units (IMU's) designed for running only capture temporospatial data, the ability to capture biomechanics data such as shock and motion metrics with the RunScribe IMU makes it the closest to a lab alternative. The RunScribe system has been validated in running, however, is yet to be validated for walking.
methodQualisys motion capture, AMTI force plates, and Delsys Trigno accelerometers were used as gold standard lab measures for comparison against the RunScribe IMU. Twenty participants completed 10 footsteps per foot (20 total) measured by both systems simultaneously. Variables for validation included: Vertical Ground reaction force (GRF), instantaneous GRF rate, pronation excursion, pronation velocity, total shock, impact force, braking force. Interclass correlation (ICC) was used to determine agreement between the measurement systems, mean differences were used to evaluate group level accuracy.
resultsICC results showed moderate agreement between measurement systems when both limbs were averaged. The greatest agreement was seen for GRF rate, pronation excursion, and pronation velocity (ICC = 0.627, 0.616, 0.539), low agreement was seen for GRF, total shock, impact shock, braking shock (ICC = 0.269, 0.351, 0.244, 0.180). However mean differences show the greatest level of accuracy for GRF, GRF rate, and impact shock. DISCUSSION: Results show mixed agreement between the RunScribe and gold standard lab measures, and varied agreement across left and right limbs. Kinematic variables showed the greatest agreement, however GRF had the lowest relative mean difference for group results. The results show acceptable levels of agreement for most variables, however further work must be done to assess the repeatability and sensitivity of the RunScribe to be applied within areas such as footwear testing and gait retraining protocols.
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.