Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40167464›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units on gait, static balance and functional mobility performance among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lulu Yin, Xin Xu, Ruiyan Wang, Feifei Li, Yushan Wang, Lin Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xin Xu
Ruiyan Wang
Feifei Li
Yushan Wang
Lin Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated validity and test-retest reliability of inertial measurement units (IMUs) in gait metrics, static balance and functional mobility performance in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Spatiotemporal/biomechanical outcomes were meta-analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) or Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for validity and reliability, respectively. Results: In our systematic review of 56 articles and meta-analysis of 38 articles, the included studies varied in quality from low-to-moderate. During validity analysis, IMU-derived metrics, including walking speed, cadence, step/stride time, step time variability, step/stride length and duration of sit-to-stand (STS) test/timed up, and go test (TUGT) exhibited excellent (ICCs) or good-to-excellent (r values) agreement with gold standards. In terms of reliability, excellent test-retest consistency was found for walking speed, cadence, step/stride time, stance/swing time, step/stride length during gait, individual STS duration, TUGT duration and walking speed during the 6-min walk test. Conclusions: Due to consistently high levels of validity and reliability, the present study supported the use of IMUs for measuring gait spatiotemporal outcomes. However, caution was advised when applying spatiotemporal variability and symmetry metrics. In addition, characterized by moderate-to-good validity and reliability, current review provides evidence of a neutral nature regarding the utilization of IMUs for static balance and functional mobility performance.

Indexed as

inertial measurement unitsolder adultspostural controlreliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40167464
PMCPMC12002737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.