Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38476162›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Reliability of Markerless Motion Capture Systems for Assessing Movement Screenings.

Jonathan D Hauenstein, Alan Huebner, John P Wagle, Emma R Cobian, Joseph Cummings, Caroline Hills, Megan McGinty, Mandy Merritt, Sam Rosengarten, Kyle Skinner and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan D HauensteinDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Alan HuebnerDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
John P WagleUniversity of Notre Dame, Sports Performance, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Emma R CobianDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Joseph CummingsDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Caroline HillsDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Megan McGintyDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Mandy MerrittUniversity of Notre Dame, Sports Performance, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Sam RosengartenDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Kyle SkinnerUniversity of Notre Dame, Sports Performance, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Michael SzemborskiUniversity of Notre Dame, Sports Performance, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Leigh WojtkiewiczUniversity of Notre Dame, Data & Analytics, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
University of Notre Dame · USUnder Armour (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Movement screenings are commonly used to detect unfavorable movement patterns. Markerless motion capture systems have been developed to track 3-dimensional motion. Purpose: To determine the reliability of movement screenings assessed using a markerless motion capture system when comparing the results of multiple systems and multiple collection periods. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: The inter- and intrarater reliability of a commercially available markerless motion capture system were investigated in 21 recreationally active participants aged between 18 and 22 years. A total of 39 kinematic variables arising from 10 fundamental upper and lower body movements typical of a screening procedure in sports performance were considered. The data were statistically analyzed in terms of relative error via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and absolute error via the residual standard error (RSE). Results: Both inter- and intrarater reliability ICCs were at least moderate across all variables (ICC, >0.50), with most movements and corresponding variables having excellent reliability (ICC, >0.90). Although maximum knee valgus angles were the kinematic variables with the lowest interrater reliability (ICCs, 0.59-0.82) and moderate relative agreement, there was agreement in absolute terms with an RSE of <1.3°. Conclusion: Findings indicated that markerless motion capture provides reliable measurements of joint position during a movement screen, which allows for a more objective evaluation of the direction and subsequent success of interventions. However, practitioners should consider relative and absolute agreements when applying information provided by these systems. Clinical Relevance: Markerless motion capture systems may assist clinicians by reliably assessing movement screenings using different systems over different collection periods.

Indexed as

interrater reliabilityintrarater reliabilitykinematic variablesmarkerless motion capturemovement screening

Identifiers

PMID38476162
PMCPMC10929051
OpenAlexW4392647414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.