ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Repeatability of Inertial Measurements of Spinal Posture in Daily Life.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Posture, physical activity, and sleep have been shown to be linked to many health issues but are difficult to assess in laboratories, especially in terms of long-term patterns. Worn on the body, inertial measurement units (IMUs) measure motion and have shown promise for longitudinal measurements of these phenomena, but the repeatability of their measurements in daily life has not been extensively characterized. This study assessed the repeatability of measures of spine posture and movement in a set of standardized tasks in the lab versus those performed at home using IMUs. We also evaluated issues that impact data quality for real-world measurements. The results showed moderate repeatability in the range of spinal motion assessed during the tasks (ICC = 0.67). In contrast, the absolute angles of the spine (such as the starting posture) were more variable and more difficult to estimate. The estimation of the reference posture was identified as a key factor. Five methods to estimate the reference posture were compared, and the use of a composite set of standardized tasks performed best (ICC = 0.72 ± 0.17). Additional studies and cross-validation with other sensors are needed to draw stronger conclusions about the optimal methodology. For measurements of daily life over 2 days, magnetic interference had a major impact on the data quality, affecting 43% of all data analyzed. Metrics were developed to assess data quality and strategies are proposed to improve repeatability in future work.
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.