ReviewWearable technologies2024
Concurrent validity of inertial measurement units in range of motion measurements of upper extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Wearable technologies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Limited Wrist Motion and Forearm Rotation on Scapular Kinematics and Muscle Activity During Spoon-Feeding in Healthy Young Adults.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- A Protocol for the Biomechanical Evaluation of the Types of Setting Motions in Volleyball Based on Kinematics and Muscle Synergies.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Instrumented gait characteristics and short-term changes after CAREN training in ischemic stroke: a pilot study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Validation of Azure Kinect for upper limb kinematic assessment after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: task-dependent accuracy and postoperative overestimation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Development and measurement of elbow and knee joints using an electro-goniometer in healthy subjects: A preliminary study.SICOT-J · 2026Article
- Validation of a Commercially Available IMU-Based System Against an Optoelectronic System for Full-Body Motor Tasks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Markerless Motion Analysis Using New Digital Technology.Physical therapy research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have proven to be valuable tools in measuring the range of motion (RoM) of human upper limb joints. Although several studies have reported on the validity of IMUs compared to the gold standard (optical motion capture system, OMC), a quantitative summary of the accuracy of IMUs in measuring RoM of upper limb joints is still lacking. Thus, the primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the concurrent validity of IMUs for measuring RoM of the upper extremity in adults. Fifty-one articles were included in the systematic review, and data from 16 were pooled for meta-analysis. Concurrent validity is excellent for shoulder flexion-extension (Pearson's
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.