ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
The Difference in the Assessment of Knee Extension/Flexion Angles during Gait between Two Calibration Methods for Wearable Goniometer Sensors.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Frontal and axial knee motion can affect the accuracy of the knee extension/flexion motion measurement using a wearable goniometer. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that calibrating the goniometer on an individual's body would reduce errors in knee flexion angle during gait, compared to bench calibration. Ten young adults (23.2 ± 1.3 years) were enrolled. Knee flexion angles during gait were simultaneously assessed using a wearable goniometer sensor and an optical three-dimensional motion analysis system, and the absolute error (AE) between the two methods was calculated. The mean AE across a gait cycle was 2.4° (0.5°) for the on-body calibration, and the AE was acceptable (<5°) throughout a gait cycle (range: 1.5-3.8°). The mean AE for the on-bench calibration was 4.9° (3.4°) (range: 1.9-13.6°). Statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis revealed that the AE of the on-body calibration was significantly smaller than that of the on-bench calibration during 67-82% of the gait cycle. The results indicated that the on-body calibration of a goniometer sensor had acceptable and better validity compared to the on-bench calibration, especially for the swing phase of gait.
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.