ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparison Between Inertial Sensor and Video-Based Detection of Spatiotemporal Limb Movement Parameters During Equine Swimming.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Equine swimming is increasingly used for injury prevention and rehabilitation, but objective analysis of movement during swimming remains limited compared to land-based locomotion. Spatiotemporal parameters are essential for evaluating therapeutic outcomes, yet capturing these parameters is technically challenging due to difficulties in observing limb motion in water. Inertial sensors, already widely applied in equine science, offer a promising solution for measuring swimming kinematics objectively. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of inertial sensors placed on equine distal limbs in detecting key spatiotemporal events during swimming by comparing it with video-based detection made by veterinarians. For the duration of the hindlimb swimming cycle, 24 data values were analysed and showed an "excellent" agreement, with an intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.904-0.983, and Bland-Altmann analysis showed an upper limit of agreement of 50 ms (95% CI: 70 ms, 30 ms) and lower one of -60 ms (95% CI: -40 ms, -80 ms). The estimates of the "swimming" duty factor of the hindlimb (n = 24) demonstrated "moderate" to "excellent" with intraclass correlation of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.625-0.920) and limits of agreement of 4.39% (95% CI: 6.21%, 2.53%) and -5.28% (95% CI: -3.42%, -7.14%). The results of the forelimb were mixed, suggesting that the cycle duration and "swimming" duty factor parameters determined for this limb should be used with caution. Overall, the findings confirm that inertial sensors, particularly on the hindlimbs, provide reliable spatiotemporal measurements and are well suited for studying equine swimming.
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.