Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40942940›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture for Industrial Ergonomic Risk Analysis.

Sofia Scataglini, Eugenia Fontinovo, Nouran Khafaga, Muhammad Ubaidullah Khan, Muhammad Faizan Khan, Steven Truijen

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A framework for quantifying the mechanics of dexterous grasp.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Sofia Scataglini4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-9522
Eugenia Fontinovo4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0002-7628-4049
Nouran Khafaga4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
Muhammad Ubaidullah Khan4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0002-4989-5178
Muhammad Faizan Khan4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
Steven Truijen4D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0604-1431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ergonomic risk assessment is crucial for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), which often arise from repetitive tasks, prolonged sitting, and load handling, leading to absenteeism and increased healthcare costs. Biomechanical risk assessment, such as RULA/REBA, is increasingly being enhanced by camera-based motion capture systems, either marker-based (MBSs) or markerless systems (MCBSs). This systematic review compared MBSs and MCBSs regarding accuracy, validity, and reliability for industrial ergonomic risk analysis. A comprehensive search of PubMed, WoS, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and PEDro (31 May 2025) identified 898 records; after screening with PICO-based eligibility criteria, 20 quantitative studies were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool, synthesized using PRISMA 2020, and graded with EBRO criteria. MBSs showed the highest precision (0.5-1.5 mm error) and reliability (ICC > 0.90) but were limited by cost and laboratory constraints. MCBSs demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy (5-20 mm error; mean joint-angle error: 2.31° ± 4.00°) and good reliability (ICC > 0.80), with greater practicality in field settings. Several studies reported strong validity for RULA/REBA prediction (accuracy up to 89%, κ = 0.71). In conclusion, MCBSs provide a feasible, scalable alternative to traditional ergonomic assessment, combining reliability with usability and supporting integration into occupational risk prevention.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsImaging, Three-DimensionalMotion CaptureBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational DiseasesReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessmentaccuracyergonomic risk assessmentindustrial workersmarker-based 3D motion capturemarkerless 3D camera-based motion capturereliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40942940
PMCPMC12431202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.