ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing the Validity and Reliability of a Single Lumbar-Mounted IMU System for 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the Cognitive Load of Cell Phone Use While Walking: Distinct Effects of Texting and Phone Conversation.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Postural Sway Analysis: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable inertial sensors offer a practical alternative to gold-standard optoelectronic systems for gait analysis, though their validity remains uncertain due to sensor placement. This study examined the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and the concurrent validity of a single lumbar-mounted inertial measurement unit (Baiobit, BTS Bioengineering, Garbagnate Milanese, Italy) compared with a 3D optoelectronic system (SMART-DX 6000, BTS Bioengineering). Thirty healthy adults walked along an 8 m walkway at a self-selected speed, and seven spatiotemporal gait parameters (cadence, velocity, stride length, step length, stance, swing, and single-support phases) were computed by both systems. Reliability and validity were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, paired tests, Spearman correlation, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. Baiobit showed intra- and inter-rater ICCs of 0.53-0.90 and 0.66-0.88, respectively. Bland-Altman results indicated non-significant biases for global parameters (velocity: -0.06 m/s; cadence: 1.11 steps/min), whereas spatial measures showed significant biases (stride length: 0.11 m; step length: 0.06 m). Gait phase parameters demonstrated low correlations (r = 0.08-0.11) and proportional systematic errors. Overall, the Baiobit system provided reliable and valid estimates of global spatiotemporal parameters but lacked precision for gait phase metrics, underscoring limitations that currently prevent it from fully replacing optoelectronic systems.
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.