ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Validation of a Commercially Available IMU-Based System Against an Optoelectronic System for Full-Body Motor Tasks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy and Validity of 3D Markerless Motion Capture Compared to Marker-Based Systems for Lower-Limb Biomechanical Assessment: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Feasibility and safety of sailing based rehabilitation for rare skeletal disorders using wearable sensors and patient reported outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- A wearable IMU-based method for measuring biomechanical parameters in hammer throwing.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have gained popularity as portable and cost-effective alternatives to optoelectronic motion capture systems for assessing joint kinematics. This study aimed to validate a commercially available multi-sensor IMU-based system against a laboratory-grade motion capture system across lower limb, trunk, and upper limb movements. Fifteen healthy participants performed a battery of single- and multi-joint tasks while motion data were simultaneously recorded by both systems. Range of motion (ROM) values were extracted from the two systems and compared. The IMU-based system demonstrated high concurrent validity, with non-significant differences in most tasks, root mean square error values generally below 7°, percentage of similarity greater than 97%, and strong correlations (
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.