ArticleGait & posture2025
Inertial measurement units worn on the dorsum of the foot and proximal to the ankle can provide valid slip recovery measures.
Article in Gait & posture, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Sufficient Standardization? Evaluating the Reliability of an Inertial Sensor (BeyondSports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sternum drop as a kinematic measure of trip recovery performance.Journal of biomechanics · 2025Article
- Sternum drop during trip recovery differs between the laboratory and real world - An exploratory pilot study.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSlips are a leading cause of injury among older adults. Slip recovery measures are often captured using optoelectronic motion capture (OMC) systems that can be costly and typically require a laboratory setting. Inertial measurement unit (IMU) systems show promise as a lower cost, portable, and wearable form of motion capture. QUESTION: Can IMUs worn on the dorsum of the feet and proximal to the ankles be used to capture valid slip recovery measures?
methodsThirty older adults (ages 65-80; 18 females) were exposed to a laboratory slip while wearing OMC markers, IMUs on the dorsum of the feet, and IMUs proximal to the ankles. To evaluate the concurrent validity of IMU-based slip recovery measures using the OMC-based measures as our standard, we determined whether the IMU-based slip recovery measures differed between falls and recoveries, and evaluated the strength of correlation between IMU-based measures and OMC. We also defined the difference between foot IMU-based and OMC-based slip recovery measures to be the system offset, and compared the system offset variance between participant-placed IMUs and researcher-placed IMUs.
resultsAll IMU-based and OMC-based slip recovery measures differed between falls and recoveries (p ≤ 0.008), and all IMU-based measures exhibited strong correlation (r ≥ 0.94) with OMC-based measures. The system offset variance was larger when foot IMUs were participant-placed than when researcher-placed for anterior-posterior slip distance (p = 0.032), but not other slip recovery measures (p ≥ 0.054). SIGNIFICANCE: IMUs worn on the dorsum of the feet and proximal to the ankle can provide valid slip recovery measures in a laboratory setting. This includes IMUs placed by participants on the dorsum of the feet that might be needed for the long-term monitoring of these measures by participants outside the laboratory setting.
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.