ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Validation of a Virtual Reality-Based Timed Up-and-Go Test Using Body-Worn Motion Trackers.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFull-body motion capture using commercial virtual reality (VR) systems offers unique opportunities for augmenting common functional assessment such as the timed up-and-go (TUG) test. The purpose of this study was to determine whether task performance (chair, walk, turns) during a VR version (vTUG) is parametrically equivalent to the standard test (sTUG).
methodsTwenty healthy adult participants (age 19-71 years) were evaluated with the sTUG followed by the vTUG version of the same test. Body trackers were used to capture kinematics during both tests. TUG time was measured manually with a stopwatch. Tracker data were used to automatically quantify total TUG time and sub-task times for chair, walk and turn portions. Absolute agreement was evaluated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC(2,k)) and Bland-Altman analysis. A custom survey was used to evaluate user satisfaction.
resultsVery good agreement (ICC > 0.8) was found between sTUG and vTUG for manual and automated measures of total time. ICCs for sub-task times were acceptable (ICC > 0.7) for chair rise, walks and first turn but less so for second turn and sit (ICC < 0.7). User satisfaction was high, and there were no adverse events.
interpretationThe vTUG and sTUG are parametrically equivalent, though sub-task segmentation may require more research. Nevertheless, VR body trackers are a value-added feature whether used with the vTUG or the sTUG and warrant further investigation.
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.