ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of feetme insoles with a motion capture system coupled to force plates for assessing gait and posture.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Validation of IMU-Based Insoles (LUBU) for the Estimation of Gait Spatio-Temporal Parameters.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Smart Shoe System for Gait Analysis and Remote Monitoring in Parkinson's Disease-A Validation Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of crutch-assisted walking on pain, gait, and hip function in early and middle-stage osteonecrosis: a randomized trial.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Traditional gait measurement systems are often limited by factors such as cost, complexity, prolonged setup times, and requirements for specialized training and expertise. Wearable pressure- and motion-sensing insoles have opened new possibilities for accessible gait analysis in real-life conditions. This study evaluated the equivalence of FeetMe insole measurements of gait parameters to those of a laboratory gold standard, optoelectronic motion capture system coupled to force platforms (MoCap/FP). Gait and posture parameters were assessed in 37 healthy adults by FeetMe insoles and by MoCap/FP system simultaneously. Means and variances were compared, and inter-device agreement was assessed for each parameter. Between-device equivalence was demonstrated for all parameters assessed (two one-sided t tests: P < .001). For static parameters, six of 13 variables presented excellent interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs ≥ 0.90) and three had good ICCs (≥ 0.75 to < 0.90). Moreover, 10 of 11 spatiotemporal parameters showed excellent accuracy (ICCs ≥ 0.90), and three of four kinetic parameters showed moderate-to-good accuracy (ICCs between 0.78 and 0.89). In summary, FeetMe can be considered as a valid gait measurement tool compared to the high precision MoCap/FP system and could be used in clinical practice to assess a wide range of gait and posture parameters, overcoming some limitations of traditional systems.
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.