SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Concurrent validity of wearable IMUs for sagittal plane lower-limb range of motion during walking and estimated ground reaction forces: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative assessment of thoracolumbosacral orthosis efficacy on the temporal features of gait using inertial measurement unit sensors.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Waveform-Level Validation of Continuous Shank-to-Vertical Angle Measurement Using a Wearable Posture Sensor with Independent Video-Based Gait Event Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-Time Gait Analysis of the Pelvis and Lower Limbs Using a Seven-Node IMU Network.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Test-Retest Reliability and Validity of a Sums-of-Gaussians-Based Markerless Motion Capture System for Human Lower-Limb Gait Kinematics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reliability and criterion validity of a wearable IMU for ankle joint position sense: agreement with isokinetic dynamometry and discrimination of chronic ankle instability.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
backgroundInertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a portable, affordable alternative to optical motion capture (OMC) systems for gait analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the concurrent validity of IMUs against gold-standard systems (OMC and force plates) for the lower-limb sagittal plane range of motion (RoM) during walking. We also summarized evidence on estimating vertical and anterior-posterior ground reaction forces (GRFs).
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched on December 10, 2023 and updated on August 26, 2025. We included studies of ambulatory human participants where IMUs were compared with optical motion capture or force plates for sagittal plane RoM or on estimating vertical and anterior-posterior GRFs. Both observational and randomized designs were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed study quality (QUADAS-2). Pooled root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis for RoM and GRFs.
results27 studies met inclusion criteria; 22 were included in meta-analysis. IMUs showed concurrent validity (RMSE) within the commonly cited threshold ≤ 5° for ankle (RMSE = 4.62°, 95% CI 3.34-5.90) and knee (RMSE = 4.60°, 95% CI 3.60-5.60) sagittal plane RoM, especially during overground walking. Hip concurrent validity was borderline (RMSE = 5.79°, 95% CI 4.39-7.19), with errors amplified on treadmills. Variability (I
conclusionIMUs provide acceptable concurrent validity (RMSE ≤ 5°) for ankle and knee sagittal plane RoM during walking. Concurrent validity decreases for the hip and treadmill conditions. Standardized calibration, sensor placement, and processing protocols are essential for reliable clinical use, and until further validation, IMUs should be considered complementary rather than stand-alone tools.
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.