ArticlePloS one2023
Wearables for running gait analysis: A study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05277181 (Wearable Technology as an Objective Tool for Measuring Running Gait), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Wearable Technology as an Objective Tool for Measuring Running Gait
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Review of Gait Analysis Using Gyroscopes and Inertial Measurement Units.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The running gait analysis technology: A comprehensive systematic literature review.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative running gait analysis is an important tool that provides beneficial outcomes to injury risk/recovery or performance assessment. Wearable devices have allowed running gait to be evaluated in any environment (i.e., laboratory or real-world settings), yet there are a plethora of different grades of devices (i.e., research-grade, commercial, or novel multi-modal) available with little information to make informed decisions on selection. This paper outlines a protocol that will examine different grades of wearables for running gait analysis in healthy individuals. Specifically, this pilot study will: 1) examine analytical validity and reliability of wearables (research-grade, commercial, high-end multimodal) within a controlled laboratory setting; 2) examine analytical validation of different grades of wearables in a real-world setting, and 3) explore clinical validation and usability of wearables for running gait analysis (e.g., injury history (previously injured, never injured), performance level (novice, elite) and relationship to meaningful outcomes). The different grades of wearable include: (1) A research-grade device, the Ax6 consists of a configurable tri-axial accelerometer and tri-axial gyroscope with variable sampling capabilities; (2) attainable (low-grade) commercial with proprietary software, the DorsaVi ViMove2 consisting of two, non-configurable IMUs modules, with a fixed sampling rate and (3) novel multimodal high-end system, the DANU Sports System that is a pair of textile socks, that contain silicone based capacitive pressure sensors, and configurable IMU modules with variable sampling rates. Clinical trial registration: Trial registration: NCT05277181.
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.