ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Pilot Validation Study of Inertial Measurement Units and Markerless Methods for 3D Neck and Trunk Kinematics during a Simulated Surgery Task.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMU- and Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Joint Kinematics: A Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Concurrent Validity of Two Inertial Measurement Unit Pipelines for Estimating Lumbar and Thoracic Kinematics During Lifting Tasks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optical Sensor-Based Approaches in Obesity Detection: A Literature Review of Gait Analysis, Pose Estimation, and Human Voxel Modeling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Biomechanical Load of Neck and Lumbar Joints in Open-Surgery Training.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Trunk-head coordination in chronic neck pain, reliability, influence of visual feedback, and relationship to patient-reported outcomes.Archives of physiotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgeons are at high risk for developing musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS), like neck and back pain. Quantitative analysis of 3D neck and trunk movements during surgery can help to develop preventive devices such as exoskeletons. Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) and markerless motion capture methods are allowed in the operating room (OR) and are a good alternative for bulky optoelectronic systems. We aim to validate IMU and markerless methods against an optoelectronic system during a simulated surgery task. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC (2,1)), root mean square error (RMSE), range of motion (ROM) difference and Bland-Altman plots were used for evaluating both methods. The IMU-based motion analysis showed good-to-excellent (ICC 0.80-0.97) agreement with the gold standard within 2.3 to 3.9 degrees RMSE accuracy during simulated surgery tasks. The markerless method shows 5.5 to 8.7 degrees RMSE accuracy (ICC 0.31-0.70). Therefore, the IMU method is recommended over the markerless motion capture.
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.