Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369421›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2025

Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait kinematics in older adults across varying fall risk levels and walking speeds.

Lulu Yin, Peng Chen, Junkai Xu, Yixue Gong, Yifang Zhuang, Yiming Chen, Lin Wang

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Gait analysis methods in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Lulu YinKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Peng ChenKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Junkai XuIMU Master Technology Company Ltd, Shanghai, China.
Yixue GongKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Yifang ZhuangKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Yiming ChenKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Lin WangSports Medicine and Rehabilitation Center, Shanghai University of Sport, No.188, HengRen Road, YangPu District, Shanghai, China. wanglin@sus.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to determine whether the validity and reliability of inertial measurement units (IMUs) in measuring lower extremity joint kinematics differed among different walking velocities and varying fall risk older adults.

methodsForty-five older adults were categorized into low and high fall risk. Lower extremity joint angles during walking were simultaneously measured using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and an optical motion capture (OMC) system across slow, preferred, and fast walking speeds. The Coefficient of Multiple Correlation (CMC) was employed to assess waveform consistency, while systematic error (SE) was calculated to quantify deviations. For discrete kinematic parameters, Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), and root mean square error (RMSE) were computed. A two-way analysis of variance utilizing statistical parametric mapping methods was conducted to compare differences in lower extremity joint angles across fall risk categories and varying walking speeds.

resultsFor lower extremity joint waveforms, IMUs demonstrated very good to excellent validity (low fall risk: CMC = 0.872-0.957, SE = 4.8°-9.6°; high fall risk: CMC = 0.894-0.974,SE = 4.5°-6.9°) and reliability (within-raters: low fall risk: CMC = 0.924-0.982, SE = 3.9°-6.5°; high fall risk: CMC = 0.914-0.974, SE = 1.0°-2.5°; between-raters: low fall risk: CMC = 0.953-0.981, SE = 2.2°-5.9°; high fall risk: CMC = 0.903-0.985, SE = 1.7°-2.2°) for joint kinematics in the sagittal plane across various walking velocities in both low and high fall risk individuals. For discrete parameters, r values of peak joint angles and ROM measured by IMUs and OMC system were generally higher in the sagittal plane compared to the frontal and transverse planes. ICC values between within-raters and between-raters comparisons ranged from moderate to excellent, with RMSE values between 2.1°- 8.4° for both within-rater and between-rater comparisons in the sagittal plane. There are significant differences in the joint angles of lower limbs between different fall risk groups and different walking speeds in specific gait cycle intervals.

conclusionIMUs are valid and reliable for measuring joint kinematics both low- and high-fall risk older adults across different walking speeds. However, caution is warranted when interpreting data from the frontal and transverse planes. Additionally, high fall risk individuals had smaller joint angles, while faster walking speeds increased joint angles during specific gait cycles.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAccidental FallsGaitWalkingWalking SpeedAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsInertial measurement unitsOlder adultsReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID40369421
PMCPMC12076970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.