ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Can Wearable Sensors Provide Accurate and Reliable 3D Tibiofemoral Angle Estimates during Dynamic Actions?
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to accurately measure tibiofemoral angles during various dynamic activities is of clinical interest. The purpose of this study was to determine if inertial measurement units (IMUs) can provide accurate and reliable angle estimates during dynamic actions. A tuned quaternion conversion (TQC) method tuned to dynamics actions was used to calculate Euler angles based on IMU data, and these calculated angles were compared to a motion capture system (our "gold" standard) and a commercially available sensor fusion algorithm. Nine healthy athletes were instrumented with APDM Opal IMUs and asked to perform nine dynamic actions; five participants were used in training the parameters of the TQC method, with the remaining four being used to test validity. Accuracy was based on the root mean square error (RMSE) and reliability was based on the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA). Improvement across all three orthogonal angles was observed as the TQC method was able to more accurately (lower RMSE) and more reliably (smaller LoA) estimate an angle than the commercially available algorithm. No significant difference was observed between the TQC method and the motion capture system in any of the three angles (
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.