ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of lower body joint kinematics during change of direction tasks estimated using a markerless and a markerbased method.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marker-based (MB) motion capture systems face challenges like marker loss, soft tissue artifacts, and manual processing. Markerless (ML) motion capture systems might be particularly advantageous for capturing dynamic, non-linear movements like change of direction (COD) movements. The agreement between MB and ML systems for lower extremity joint kinematics during COD tasks was evaluated. Nineteen athletes performed cutting movements in 5 directions at 3 intensities. Data was captured using infrared and video cameras. Joint angles were computed, and the agreement was assessed using prediction band and extended Bland-Altman (BA) methods. Knee joint angles showed the smallest random and systematic errors (bias = 4.34°, area = 3102.57 deg·stance%; BA: bias = 3.34°, limits of agreement (LoA) = ± 11.38°) compared to ankle and hip joint angles. Flexion/extension angles displayed a smaller random error (area = 2919.74 deg·stance%; LoA = ± 10.71°) compared to ab-/adduction (area = 3477.70 deg·stance%; LoA ± 12.16°) and internal/external rotation angles (area = 4630.68 deg·stance%; LoA = ± 15.75°). Slower and straight-line movements demonstrated stronger agreement than sharper, non-linear directions. These findings provide valuable insight for researchers and practitioners when placing ML data in the context of existing data, with particular care when considering highly dynamic, non-linear movements or internal/external rotation angles.
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.