Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38167148›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024

Accuracy validation of a wearable IMU-based gait analysis in healthy female.

Yi He, Yuxia Chen, Li Tang, Jing Chen, Jing Tang, Xiaoxuan Yang, Songchuan Su, Chen Zhao, Nong Xiao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
27.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Interpol review of forensic image and video analysis, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yi He *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No.1 Youyi Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Yuxia Chen *Department of Rehabilitation, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, No. 136 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Li TangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No.1 Youyi Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Jing ChenShanqi (Chongqing) Smart Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Chongqing, China.
Jing TangShanqi (Chongqing) Smart Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Chongqing, China.
Xiaoxuan YangShanqi (Chongqing) Smart Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Chongqing, China.
Songchuan SuChongqing Orthopedics Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Chen ZhaoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No.1 Youyi Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China. lecraz@sina.com.
Nong XiaoDepartment of Rehabilitation, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, No. 136 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China. kangfukexn@163.com.
Chongqing Medical University · CNChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNFirst People's Hospital of Chongqing · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Gait analysisOptical motion captureWearable inertial measurement unit

Identifiers

PMID38167148
PMCPMC10762813
OpenAlexW4390499062

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.