ArticlePloS one2025
Validity of smartphone sensors to assess selected kinetic and kinematic outcomes during single-leg landing stabilization tasks.
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.
- A dataset of paired smartphone and BioPlux accelerometer measurements for vertical jump analysis.Scientific data · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLanding stabilization tasks are a key component of injury prevention and rehabilitation programs. An objective estimation of kinetics and kinematics requires equipment and expertise which are often unavailable outside specialized centres. We investigated whether smartphone sensors, which are widely available to the general population, provide valid estimates of selected body kinematics and kinetics during landing stabilization tasks.
methodsSeventy-six asymptomatic participants (35 females) performed a unilateral landing stabilization task on both legs. Ground reaction forces and trunk orientation were collected using a force platform and an inertial measurement unit, respectively. Participants performed the tasks holding a smartphone on their chest, which collected acceleration and orientation data. We established the validity between estimates obtained with smartphone sensors and specialized equipment using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and paired T-test or Wilcoxon test.
resultsFor both legs, agreement was excellent for time of flight (lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the ICC > 0.94); at least good for early balance (ICC > 0.87), sagittal trunk orientation (ICC > 0.79), and concentric force (ICC > 0.80); and at least moderate for frontal trunk orientation (ICC > 0.58), late balance (ICC > 0.65) and landing impact (ICC > 0.60). Smartphone accelerometers overestimated all measures compared to the force platform (p < 0.001).
conclusionSmartphone sensors provide measures similar to those obtained using specialized equipment when used to assess selected kinetics and kinematics outcomes during landing stabilization exercises. Time of flight, concentric force, early balance and trunk orientation in the sagittal plane demonstrated at least good agreement, although smartphone sensors systematically overestimated acceleration-derived measures. This study sets the foundations for the use of smartphone sensors as a simple, inexpensive tool to characterize the performance of landing stabilization tasks objectively.
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.