ArticlePloS one2024
Validity and reliability of running gait measurement with the ViMove2 system.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex Differences in Speed-Related Running Mechanics Using IMU in Runners.Translational sports medicine · 2026Article
- Instrumenting Parkrun: Usefulness and Validity of Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
Running biomechanics have traditionally been analysed in laboratory settings, but this may not reflect natural running gait. Wearable technology has the potential to enable precise monitoring of running gait beyond the laboratory. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical validity and intra-session reliability of temporal running gait outcomes measured by the ViMove2 wearable system in healthy adults. Seventy-four healthy adults (43 males, 31 females, aged 18-55 years) wore the inertial device, ViMove2 on the tibia. Participants ran on a treadmill for one minute at various speeds (8, 10, 12, 14km/hr), completed in a standardised shoe (Saucony Guide Runner). Running gait was measured with the ViMove2 wearable and 3D motion capture (Vicon). Temporal running gait outcomes included ground contact time (GCT) and cadence (steps/min). GCT and cadence from the ViMove2 had face validity with expected changes in outcome with different running speeds, but ViMove2 tended to over-estimate GCT, and under-estimate cadence compared to the reference, especially at slower speeds. GCT demonstrated moderate to good agreement to the reference at speeds >10km/hr, but poor agreement at 8km/hr and within female runners. Cadence had moderate to excellent agreement across speeds compared to the reference. GCT and cadence had excellent reliability across speeds, but at 8km/hr GCT had good agreement between trials. Overall, temporal gait outcomes of GCT and cadence can be measured with the ViMove2, but accuracy and reliability are impacted at slow running speeds and within female runners. Future work is needed to clarify sex or speed-dependent corrections to algorithms / outcomes to aid interpretation and application.
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.