ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024
Accuracy validation of a wearable IMU-based gait analysis in healthy female.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assessment of thoracolumbosacral orthosis efficacy on the temporal features of gait using inertial measurement unit sensors.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Interpol review of forensic image and video analysis, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Real-Time Gait Analysis of the Pelvis and Lower Limbs Using a Seven-Node IMU Network.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating Wearable Sensors and Clinical Tools for Assessing Pelvic Gait Symmetry During ACL Recovery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical applications of wearable sensor-based gait analysis in athletes: a systematic review for injury prevention and rehabilitation.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Technologies to investigate the mechanisms of force-based manipulations: a narrative methods review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Biomechanical compensatory chain and residual compensation potential in aging spinal deformity: a narrative review and multimodal assessment framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Accuracy and Inter-Subject Variability of Gait Event Detection Methods Based on Optical and Inertial Motion Capture.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Oxygen uptake kinetics differentiates two from six minute walk tests in lower extremity prosthesis users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integrating a Multimodal Digital Device for Continuous Perioperative Monitoring in Patients With Lung Cancer Undergoing Thoracic Surgery: Development and Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- REEV SENSE IMUs for Gait Analysis in Stroke: A Clinical Study on Lower Limb Kinematics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Uncovering the Kinematic Signature of Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease Through Wearable Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automated Sidewalk Surface Detection Using Wearable Accelerometry and Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comprehensive human locomotion and electromyography dataset: Gait120.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Sensor-based technologies for motion analysis in sports injuries: a scoping review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Improved running gait parameter estimation from single foot-mounted IMU data based on refined event detection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and test-retest reliability of a wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) system for gait analysis in healthy female compared to a gold-standard optoelectronic motion capture (OMC) system.
methodsIn our study, we collected data from 5 healthy young females. Participants were attached with markers from both the OMC system and the IMU system simultaneously. Data was collected when participants walked on a 7 m walking path. Each participant performed 50 repetitions of walking on the path. To ensure the collection of complete gait cycle data, a gait cycle was considered valid only if the participant passed through the center of the walking path at the same time that the OMC system detected a valid marker signal. As a result, 5 gait cycles that met the standards of the OMC system were included in the final analysis. The stride length, cadence, velocity, stance phase and swing phase of the spatio-temporal parameters were included in the analysis. A generalized linear mixture model was used to assess the repeatability of the two systems. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables was used to compare the mean differences between the two systems. For evaluating the reliability of the IMU system, we calculated the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the levels of agreement between the two systems.
resultsThe measurements of Spatio-temporal parameters, including the stance phase (P = 0.78, 0.13, L-R), swing phase (P = 0.78, 0.13, L-R), velocity (P = 0.14, 0.13, L-R), cadence (P = 0.53, 0.22, L-R), stride length (P = 0.05, 0.19, L-R), by the IMU system and OMC system were similar. Which suggested that IMU and OMC systems could be used interchangeably for gait measurements. The intra-rater reliability showed an excellent correlation for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity and cadence (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC > 0.9) for both systems. However, the correlation of stride length was poor (ICC = 0.36, P = 0.34, L) to medium (ICC = 0.56, P = 0.22, R). Additionally, the measurements of IMU systems were repeatable.
conclusionsThe results of IMU system and OMC system shown good repeatability. Wearable IMU system could analyze gait data accurately. In particular, the measurement of stance phase, swing phase, velocity and cadence showed excellent reliability. IMU system provided an alternative measurement to OMC for gait analysis. However, the measurement of stride length by IMU needs further consideration.
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.