ArticlePloS one2025
Gait assessment using a 2D video-based motion analysis app in healthy subjects and subjects with lower limb amputation - A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gait assessment using a 2D video-based pose estimation app in comparison to a markerless motion capture system in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee - a pilot study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
introductionAlthough three-dimensional marker-based motion analysis is the gold standard for biomechanical investigations, it is time-consuming and cost-intensive. The conjunction of monocular video recordings with pose estimation algorithms addresses this gap. With the Orthelligent VISION app (OPED GmbH) a commercial and easy-to-use tool is now available for implementation in everyday clinical practice. The study investigates the accuracy of the 2D video-based system in measuring joint kinematics, expressed as range of motion, compared to an optoelectronic 3D motion analysis system as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsIts accuracy was determined by synchronously measuring ten healthy subjects with Orthelligent and the optoelectronic 3D motion analysis system Qualisys (Qualisys AB) during level walking and at different treadmill walking speeds (1 m/s; 1.4 m/s; 1.8 m/s). Range of motion (RoM) of lower limb joints and time-distance parameters were compared using Bland-Altman plots, t-tests, and correlations between systems. Kinematic outputs of two subjects with a lower limb amputation were also analyzed.
resultsThe mean RoM deviation was smaller for the knee (3.8°) and hip joints (3.7°) than for the ankle joint (5.4°), but differed significantly between systems in most conditions. The correlation range was 0.36 ≤ r ≤ 0.83, with best results for 1 m/s treadmill walking (mean r = 0.71 across joints). While the accuracy was affected by high inter-subject variability, individual RoM changes from slow to fast walking did not differ between the systems. The kinematics of the prosthetic and sound leg of individuals with an amputation exhibited characteristic patterns in the video-based system, even though side differences were smaller compared to the optoelectronic measurement.
conclusionsThe rather high inter-subject variability would make future comparisons between individuals challenging. Nonetheless, the app shows potential for intra-subject progress monitoring.
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.