Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37896708›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

A Scoping Review of the Validity and Reliability of Smartphone Accelerometers When Collecting Kinematic Gait Data.

Clare Strongman, Francesca Cavallerio, Matthew A Timmis, Andrew Morrison

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Evaluation of Functional Impacts of Vision Impairment: Progress, Challenges and Future Directions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Clare StrongmanCambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0334-7961
Francesca CavallerioCambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2391-3657
Matthew A TimmisCambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.
Andrew MorrisonCambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2286-6676

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate and summarize the existing literature that considers the validity and/or reliability of smartphone accelerometer applications when compared to 'gold standard' kinematic data collection (for example, motion capture). An electronic keyword search was performed on three databases to identify appropriate research. This research was then examined for details of measures and methodology and general study characteristics to identify related themes. No restrictions were placed on the date of publication, type of smartphone, or participant demographics. In total, 21 papers were reviewed to synthesize themes and approaches used and to identify future research priorities. The validity and reliability of smartphone-based accelerometry data have been assessed against motion capture, pressure walkways, and IMUs as 'gold standard' technology and they have been found to be accurate and reliable. This suggests that smartphone accelerometers can provide a cheap and accurate alternative to gather kinematic data, which can be used in ecologically valid environments to potentially increase diversity in research participation. However, some studies suggest that body placement may affect the accuracy of the result, and that position data correlate better than actual acceleration values, which should be considered in any future implementation of smartphone technology. Future research comparing different capture frequencies and resulting noise, and different walking surfaces, would be useful.

Indexed as

GaitSmartphoneAccelerometryBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansReproducibility of Resultsgaitreliabilityreviewsmartphonevaliditywalk

Identifiers

PMID37896708
PMCPMC10611257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.