ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Development of an IMU based 2-segment foot model for an applicable medical gait analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of 3D ankle kinematics between minimal inertial measurement units configuration and optical motion capture system under diverse walking conditions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A study on gait and muscle activation characteristics of persons with incomplete spinal cord injury with respect to age stratification.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Kinematic effects of sensorimotor foot orthoses on the gait of patients with patellofemoral pain-a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- The validity and reliability of motion analysis sensor system for wheelchair users (MASSWU).PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe two most commonly instrumented gait analysis tools used are Optical Motion Capture systems (OMC) and Inertial Measurement Units (IMU). To date, OMC based gait analysis is considered the gold-standard. Still, it is space-, cost-, and time-intense. On the other hand IMU systems are more cost- and time effective but simulate the whole foot as a single segment. To get a more detailed model of the foot and ankle, a new 2-segment foot model using IMU was developed, comparable to the multi-segment foot models assessed by OMC. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can an IMU based 2-segment foot model be developed to provide a more detailed representation of the foot and ankle kinematics?
methodsTo establish a 2-segment foot model, in addition to the previous 1-segment foot model an IMU sensor was added to the calcaneus. This allowed the differentiation between the hindfoot and forefoot kinematics. 30 healthy individuals (mean age 27 ± 7 years) were recruited to create a norm data set of a healthy cohort. Moreover, the kinematic data of the 2-segment foot model were compared to those of the traditional 1-segment foot model using statistical parametric mapping.
resultsThe 2-segment foot model proved to be applicable. Furthermore, it allowed for a more detailed representation of the foot and ankle joints, similar to other multi-segment foot model. The healthy cohort's norm data set showed a homogeneous motion pattern for gait.
conclusionThe 2-segment foot model allows for an extension of IMU-based gait analysis. Futures studies must prove the reliability and validity of the 2-segment foot model in healthy and pathologic situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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.