ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Smartphone-Based Markerless Motion Capture for Spatiotemporal Gait Assessment: Applied Within-Session Reliability and Comparability of OpenCap Versus OptoGait.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Validations and applications of markerless motion capture using OpenCap: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective gait assessment is increasingly needed beyond specialized laboratories, and 3D markerless motion capture is emerging as a viable option; however, evidence regarding its applied repeatability and practical use for spatiotemporal gait outcomes in scalable clinical and field settings remains limited. This study evaluated the applied repeatability and practical comparability of OpenCap (camera-based; CM) versus a commonly accepted photoelectric walkway (OptoGait; OPT). Thirty-nine healthy adults completed three 10-m overground trials at self-selected speed. CM parameters were derived from OpenCap's Advanced Overground Gait Analysis. Within-device reliability was good-to-excellent for gait speed, stride length, and cadence (ICC (3,1) = 0.734-0.920 OPT; 0.791-0.917 CM) and excellent when averaging three trials (ICC (3,3) = 0.892-0.972 OPT; 0.919-0.971 CM); double support showed lower reliability (ICC (3,1) = 0.527 OPT; 0.647 CM). Between devices, CM showed higher mean speed (+0.110 m/s), stride length (+0.127 m), and double support (+3.17% of the gait cycle), while cadence was very similar (-0.59 spm). Correlations were high for speed (r = 0.951), stride length (r = 0.864), and cadence (r = 0.983) but moderate for double support (r = 0.405); absolute-agreement ICCs were highest for cadence (0.980) and lowest for double support (0.271). OpenCap provides reliable within-session estimates for key spatiotemporal measures, but systematic bias indicates it should be used consistently as a standalone tool rather than interchangeably with OptoGait without device-specific correction or reference values.
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.