ArticleScientific reports2025
Validity, reliability, and user perspectives of the newly developed joint angle measurement system: a preliminary study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the applicability of a newly developed joint angle measurement system comprising six-axis inertial measurement unit sensors and tablet-based application for estimating joint angles from angular velocity and acceleration data. The application calculated orientation angles from single sensor data, with relative angles calculated using multiple sensors. In experiment 1, validity and reliability were examined using a test device. In experiment 2, static angles of five joints were calculated in four healthy participants using attached sensors and compared with universal goniometer values. In experiment 3, usability and satisfaction were evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST)-like scale. In experiment 1, mean difference and root mean squared error (RMSE) between the developed system and test device were < 0.2° and < 1.0°, respectively, across all axes. In experiment 2, when data from all joints were pooled, mean difference and RMSE were 0.2° and 3.8°, respectively. Mean difference and RMSE across each joint were < 5°, indicating the system is comparable to universal goniometer. In experiment 3, median SUS and QUEST-like scores were 73.8 and 4.0, respectively, indicating good usability and satisfaction. The developed system has high accuracy and sufficient validity for human joint angles, with good usability and satisfaction.
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.