ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Limited Interchangeability of Smartwatches and Lace-Mounted IMUs for Running Gait Analysis.
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 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.
- Consumer Smartwatch Technology in Health and Performance Research: Validity, Limitations, and Real-World Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Spatiotemporal running metrics such as cadence, stride length (SL), and ground contact time (GCT) are important for assessing performance and injury risk. However, such metrics are traditionally assessed using laboratory-based tools that are often inaccessible in applied settings. Wearable devices including smartwatches and lace-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer promising alternatives, yet cross-device agreement in reporting spatiotemporal variables remains unclear. This study evaluated agreement between a commercial smartwatch and lace-mounted IMUs across varied distances and environments in 65 physically active adults (33 female/32 male, height: 171.0 ± 8.9 cm; weight: 70.9 ± 15.2 kg). Participants completed indoor and outdoor runs (2.5 km, 5 km, 10 km, 20 km) wearing both devices simultaneously. Average cadence demonstrated acceptable agreement (MAPE = 4.1%, CCC = 0.66) and supported equivalence, particularly among males, during outdoor conditions, and longer run distances. In contrast, peak cadence showed weak correlation (MAPE = 5.3%, CCC = 0.29), and SL and GCT demonstrated poor agreement (MAPE = 14.9-19.0%, CCC = 0.30-0.39) across all conditions. While average cadence may serve as a metric for cross-device comparisons, especially for males, and longer-distance outdoor runs, other spatiotemporal metrics demonstrated poor agreement, limiting interchangeability. Understanding device-specific capabilities is essential when interpreting wearable-derived gait data. Further validation using gold-standard tools is needed to support accurate and applied use of wearable technologies.
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.