ReviewBiology of sport2026
Can OpenCap deliver valid and reliable kinematic data for motion analysis? A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
Review in Biology of sport, 2026. 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.
- Smartphone-Based Markerless Motion Capture for Spatiotemporal Gait Assessment: Applied Within-Session Reliability and Comparability of OpenCap Versus OptoGait.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Markerless motion capture systems have gained increasing interest as practical alternatives to gold-standard references systems in clinical and sports contexts. This systematic review and three-level metaanalysis aimed to evaluate the criterion validity of OpenCap and to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding its reliability. A literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. Among the 12 studies included in the systematic review, 11 provided sufficient data for the metaanalytic synthesis of criterion validity, encompassing 184 participants, from which 640 effect sizes (ES), 230 Fisher's Z values, and 1087 root mean square error (RMSE) values were obtained. OpenCap demonstrated a statistically significant, yet practically trivial effect compared to criterion devices (ES = -0.140; p = 0.021). Fisher's Z transformation indicated a good-to-excellent correlation with criterion devices (r = 0.845; p = 0.005). The pooled RMSE was 5.877°, which decreased to 5.197° after sensitivity analysis and further to 4.940° following trim-and-fill adjustment. In terms of reliability, test-retest consistency generally ranged from moderate to very good across many joint angles and tasks, although marked variability was observed in certain task-joint combinations, particularly in high-velocity movements and complex joint actions. OpenCap, as a smartphonebased markerless motion capture system, can provide valid and acceptable kinematic measurements when compared to criterion devices. However, its performance varies depending on task complexity and joint-specific demands, underscoring the need for evaluation across diverse populations, a wider range of task types, and within standardized methodological frameworks.
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.