ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Validation of a Wearable System for Lower Extremity Assessment.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimation of the Knee Joint with Single-Camera Smartphone.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- REEV SENSE IMUs for Gait Analysis in Stroke: A Clinical Study on Lower Limb Kinematics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Measuring Lower-Limb Kinematics in Walking: Wearable Sensors Achieve Comparable Reliability to Motion Capture Systems and Smartphone Cameras.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The 100-Days: Physical Exercise and Challenges to Assess, Maintain and Improve Physical Fitness During Lockdown.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Vertical Center-of-Mass Braking and Motor Performance during Gait Initiation in Young Healthy Adults, Elderly Healthy Adults, and Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Comparison of Force-Plate and Markerless Motion Capture Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy validation of a wearable IMU-based gait analysis in healthy female.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Monitoring Resistance Training in Real Time with Wearable Technology: Current Applications and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRemote assessment and diagnosis of functional impairment caused by osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can achieve early intervention of patients' functional impairment, prevent the deterioration of OA of the knee, and provide functional remote screening for patients with knee OA. This study introduced an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor-based system to assess lower extremity function and perform gait analysis. Then, we compared its accuracy to gold-standard motion capture and gait measurement systems.
methodsNine adults were selected to participate in a comparative study of gait assessment outcomes using an IMU sensor-based wearable system, a gold-standard motion capture system, and a pressure-based gait analysis system. The subject walked on a path that incorporated all three systems. Data analysis was performed on spatiotemporal gait parameters, including velocity, cycle time, cadence, and stride length. This was followed by gait phases, including stance, swing, double stance, and single limb support phases. Data were processed using the data processing software of each system. An independent sample t-test was conducted for inter-group comparison to analyze the data.
resultsThe spatiotemporal gait parameters of the systems demonstrated excellent consistency, and the gait phases showed high consistency. Compared to the gold-standard pressure-based gait analysis system (the GATERite system), the mean gait cycle time results were 1.124 s vs. 1.127 s (p = 0.404); cadence was 93.333 steps/min vs. 94.189 steps/min (p = 0.482); stance phase was 60.89% vs. 63.26% (p < 0.001); swing phase was 39.11% vs. 36.74% (p < 0.001); stride length was 1.404 m vs. 1.420 m (p = 0.743); speed was 1.093 m/s vs. 1.110 m/s (p = 0.725). Compared to the gold-standard video-based motion capture system, the root mean square error was 2.7° for the hip angle and 2.6° for the knee angle.
conclusionsThis IMU-based wearable system delivered precise measuring results to evaluate patients with knee OA. This technology can also be used to guide rehabilitation exercises for patients with knee OA.
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.