Observational studyJMIR formative research2025
Accuracy and Variability of a Commercial Markerless Motion Capture System Compared to a Pressure Mat for Weight Distribution in Standing: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR formative research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommercial markerless motion capture (MMC) systems show promise for use in rehabilitation and have been validated for the assessment of various parameters. However, no prior studies have evaluated MMC systems to detect stance asymmetry.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and variability of the Jintronix Weight Shift Tool MMC system to estimate the percentage of weight borne on each foot.
methodsTwelve healthy younger adults, 12 healthy older adults, and 12 people living with stroke were recruited for this cross-sectional study. The percentage of weight borne on each foot was simultaneously recorded by the Weight Shift Tool and a validated pressure mat during 2 series (raising the arm to capture the recording and without arm raise) with left lean, right lean, and equal stance. Agreement between the Weight Shift Tool and the pressure mat was assessed using Bland-Altman analyses.
resultsBias was greatest for older adults for all stances except for right lean without arm raise. Variability was greatest for people living with stroke for all stances except for left lean with arm raise. On average, the limits of agreement were narrower during equal stance. Although bias between the Weight Shift Tool and the pressure mat was small to moderate (0.0%-11.7%), the limits of agreement were wide (12.8%-33.6% above and below the bias).
conclusionsThe Weight Shift Tool is not clinically acceptable for the estimation of the percentage of weight on each foot due to high variability. Investigation of other MMC systems is required to confirm the validity of MMC for clinical assessment.
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.