CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 312Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesInertial Sensor and Navigation

Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review

Open access
Poitras, Isabelle, Dupuis, Frédérique, Bielmann, Mathieu, Campeau-Lecours, Alexandre, Mercier, Catherine, Bouyer, Laurent, Roy, Jean-Sébastien·2019·Sensors
DOI 10.3390/s19071555PMC PMC6479822
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Motion capture systems are recognized as the gold standard for joint angle calculation. However, studies using these systems are restricted to laboratory settings for technical reasons, which may lead to findings that are not representative of real-life context. Recently developed commercial and home-made inertial measurement sensors (M/IMU) are potentially good alternatives to the laboratory-based systems, and recent technology improvements required a synthesis of the current evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the criterion validity and reliability of M/IMU for each body joint and for tasks of different levels of complexity. Five different databases were screened (Pubmed, Cinhal, Embase, Ergonomic abstract, and Compendex). Two evaluators performed independent selection, quality assessment (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments [COSMIN] and quality appraisal tools), and data extraction. Forty-two studies were included. Reported validity varied according to task complexity (higher validity for simple tasks) and the joint evaluated (better validity for lower limb joints). More studies on reliability are needed to make stronger conclusions, as the number of studies addressing this psychometric property was limited. M/IMU should be considered as a valid tool to assess whole body range of motion, but further studies are needed to standardize technical procedures to obtain more accurate data.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review of 42 studies found that inertial measurement units (M/IMUs) are generally valid for joint angle estimation, with validity varying by task complexity and joint. Reliability evidence was limited, and further standardization and ecological studies are needed before extensive use outside the laboratory.

Key findings

  • Forty-two studies were included: 39 addressed validity and 15 addressed reliability; 556 subjects were tested overall (508 for validity and 184 for reliability).
  • Criterion validity evidence was strong for the trunk, pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle; conflicting for the shoulder, elbow, and wrist; and moderate for the neck. Validity was better for simple tasks and lower limb joints, while complex movements and transverse-plane rotations generally showed poorer results.
  • Reliability evidence was limited: all 15 reliability studies assessed intra-rater reliability, with only four also assessing inter-rater reliability, and reliability was evaluated in only one to three studies per joint.
  • Methodological quality was variable: MacDermid scores ranged from 41% to 92% (mean 64.5 ± 12.9%), with 11 high-quality, 22 moderate-quality, and 9 low-quality studies.

Methods

  • Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104775); five databases were screened (PubMed, CinAHL, Ergonomic abstract, Compendex, and EMBASE), yielding 943 articles and 42 included studies.
  • Inclusion criteria required human subjects aged 18–65 years, comparison of M/IMUs to a gold standard for criterion validity or repeated M/IMU measurements for reliability, publication after 2005, and French or English language.
  • Two reviewers independently performed selection, quality assessment using COSMIN and the MacDermid critical appraisal tool, and data extraction; due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized descriptively without meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • The authors state that all included studies were performed in laboratory settings, so findings cannot be directly generalized to real-life or outside-laboratory use; lack of standardization in protocols, calibration procedures, biomechanical models, and sensor placements prevented identification of main error sources.
  • The authors also state that only 12 high-quality studies were included, sample sizes ranged from 1 to 38 participants (below the recommended 50), and heterogeneity of movements prevented quantitative meta-analysis.
  • Evident from the text: reliability conclusions are constrained by the small number of studies per joint, most included studies assessed only simple planar movements or locomotor tasks, and the review focused on healthy adults aged 18–65, leaving pathological populations and ecological settings unaddressed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s19071555

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 85 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    The majority of studies reported r and RMSE for validity and ICC or CMC for reliability.

    “The majority of the studies reported r and RMSE for validity (only one article used m-estimators) and ICC or CMC for reliability [28].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    The number of studies addressing reliability was limited.

    “More studies on reliability are needed to make stronger conclusions, as the number of studies addressing this psychometric property was limited.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Reported validity varied according to task complexity, with higher validity for simple tasks.

    “Reported validity varied according to task complexity (higher validity for simple tasks)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The knee and hip were the most investigated joints for validity (15 and 13 studies, respectively).

    “The knee and the hip were the most investigated joints for validity (respectively 15 and 13 studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Reliability was only evaluated in one to three studies per joint.

    “Reliability was only evaluated in one to three studies per joint.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 72
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 23

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Reported validity varied according to the joint evaluated, with better validity for lower limb joints.

    “Reported validity varied according to task complexity (higher validity for simple tasks) and the joint evaluated (better validity for lower limb joints).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Thirty-nine articles addressed M/IMU validity and fifteen reported on reliability.

    “Thirty-nine articles addressed M/IMU validity and fifteen reported on reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Forty-two studies were included in the review.

    “Forty-two studies were included.”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
      “forty-two articles were included”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All fifteen reliability studies evaluated intra-rater reliability, with four also assessing inter-rater reliability.

    “All of the fifteen studies assessing reliability evaluated intra-rater reliability, with four also assessing inter-rater reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Neck RMSE results varied between less than 1° and 9°, showing good joint measurement validity.

    “RMSE results varied between less than 1° and 9°, showing good joint measurement validity [33,34,37,40,41].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [33] Pons, 2013, A novel motion tracking system for evaluation of functional rehabilitation of the upper limbs, Neural Regen. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] Godwin, 2009, Accuracy of inertial motion sensors in static, quasistatic, and complex dynamic motion, J. Biomech. Eng. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., and Plamondon, A. (2016). Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Shoulder variability increased with movement complexity, with simple movement protocols showing better concordance (RMSE 1-21° simple, 5-64.5° complex).

    “Variability increased with movement complexity, with simple movement protocols showing better concordance between studies (RMSE ranging from 1 to 21° for simple movements and from 5 to 64.5° for complex movements).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Across the 42 studies, the majority focused on complex movements (n = 25) compared to simple movements (n = 17).

    “Across the 42 studies, the majority focused on complex movements (n = 25) as compared to simple movements (n = 17).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Seven articles were classified as HQ, seven as MQ, twenty-four as LQ, and one as VLQ for criterion validity.

    “Seven articles were classified as HQ studies, seven as MQ, twenty-four as LQ, and one as VLQ for criterion validity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Among studies on complex movements, walking/running was the most frequently investigated (17/25).

    “Among the studies on complex movements, walking/running was the most frequently investigated (17/25), other movements including kicking, throwing, swimming, and sweeping a table.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Six studies were categorized as HQ, six as MQ, and three as LQ for reliability (combined box B and C).

    “Six studies were categorized as HQ, six as MQ, and three as LQ for reliability (combined box B and C).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    COSMIN box B (reliability) scores ranged from 22 to 100% with a mean of 67.4 ± 23.1%.

    “Scores for box B (reliability) ranged from 22 to 100% with a mean of 67.4 ± 23.1%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the neck joint is moderate (five studies, 44 participants, one HQ study).

    “The body of evidence for the neck joint is considered as moderate (five studies, total of 44 participants [one to 20 participants/study], only one HQ study).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MacDermid critical appraisal scores ranged from 41 to 92% with a mean of 64.5 ± 12.9%.

    “The scores on the MacDermid critical appraisal tool ranged from 41 to 92% (see Table S4) with a mean of 64.5 ± 12.9%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A total of 556 subjects were tested in the included studies (508 for validity and 184 for reliability).

    “A total of 556 subjects were tested in the included studies (508 for validity and 184 for reliability).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Xsens was the most studied M/IMU system (15 articles), while other systems were investigated in three or less articles.

    “The Xsens was the most studied M/IMU system (15 articles) while other systems were investigated in three or less articles (e.g., Cuela or Physilog).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The majority of studies failed to score for sample size and detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria, partly explaining low-quality scores.

    “The majority of studies failed to score for sample size and for detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria, thereby partly explaining the low-quality score for both grids.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    COSMIN box C (measurement error) scores ranged from 50 to 100% with a mean of 71.9 ± 12.8%.

    “Scores for box C (measurement error) ranged from 50 to 100% with a mean of 71.9 ± 12.8%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Eleven articles were classified as HQ, twenty-two as MQ, and nine as LQ on the MacDermid tool.

    “Eleven articles were classified as HQ studies, twenty-two as MQ, and nine as LQ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    COSMIN box H scores ranged from 17 to 100% with a mean of 56.4 ± 20.1%.

    “Scores for box H ranged from 17 to 100% with a mean of 56.4 ± 20.1%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Trunk RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 1.8 to 5.9° and 0.72 to 0.99 when excluding two poorest-quality studies, showing good to excellent validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 1.8 to 5.9° and from 0.72 to 0.99 when excluding data from these two articles, showing good to excellent validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Wrist RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 2.2 to 30° and 0.62 to 0.99, showing fair to good validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 2.2 to 30° and from 0.62 to 0.99, showing fair to good validity [28,32,33,35,37,43].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Fantozzi, 2016, Assessment of three-dimensional joint kinematics of the upper limb during simulated swimming using wearable inertial-magnetic measurement units, J. Sports Sci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Pons, 2013, A novel motion tracking system for evaluation of functional rehabilitation of the upper limbs, Neural Regen. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the pelvis joint is strong (6 studies, 95 participants, three HQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the pelvis joint (tilt or obliquity) is considered to be strong (6 studies, total of 95 participants [six to 30 Participants/Study], three HQ studies).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the trunk is strong (11 studies, 167 participants, four HQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the trunk is considered to be strong (11 studies for the lumbar and thoracic spine, total of 167 participants [one to 38 participants/study], four HQ studies).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the hip joint is strong (13 studies, 195 participants, two HQ and eight MQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the hip joint is characterized as strong (13 studies, total of 195 participants [three to 30 participants/study], two HQ studies and eight MQ studies with similar results).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Hip RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 0.2 to 9.3° and 0.53 to 1.00, showing fair to excellent validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 0.2 to 9.3° and 0.53 to 1.00, showing fair to excellent validity [5,30,37,41,42,46,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Dejnabadi, 2006, Estimation and visualization of sagittal kinematics of lower limbs orientation using body-fixed sensors, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Blair, S., Duthie, G., Robertson, S., Hopkins, W., and Ball, K. (2018). Concurrent validation of an inertial measurement system to quantify kicking biomechanics in four football codes. J. Biomech. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., and Plamondon, A. (2016). Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hip rotation and transverse plane movements showed higher RMSE and lower correlations.

    “Hip rotation and movements performed in the transverse plane (Y axis) showed higher RMSE and lower correlations (RMSE as high as 11.8° and r as low as 0.35).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Pelvis RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 0.4 to 8.8° and 0.84 to 1.00, showing good to excellent validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 0.4 to 8.8° and 0.84 to 1.00, showing good to excellent validity [30,36,38,41,42,52].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [30] Blair, S., Duthie, G., Robertson, S., Hopkins, W., and Ball, K. (2018). Concurrent validation of an inertial measurement system to quantify kicking biomechanics in four football codes. J. Biomech. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Plamondon, 2007, Evaluation of a hybrid system for three-dimensional measurement of trunk posture in motion, Appl. Ergon. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Schall, 2016, Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies, Ergonomics source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Elbow RMSE and correlation coefficient results ranged from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, showing good to excellent validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficient results range from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, respectively, showing good to excellent validity [28,31,32,33,34,35,37,39,43,45].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] Ertzgaard, 2016, A new way of assessing arm function in activity using kinematic Exposure Variation Analysis and portable inertial sensors—A validity study, Man. Ther. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Fantozzi, 2016, Assessment of three-dimensional joint kinematics of the upper limb during simulated swimming using wearable inertial-magnetic measurement units, J. Sports Sci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the knee joint is strong (15 studies, 228 participants, three HQ and nine MQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the knee joint is considered to be strong (15 studies, total of 228 participants [three to 38 participants/study], three HQ and nine MQ studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Knee RMSE and correlation varied from 1 to 11.5° and 0.4 to 1.00.

    “RMSE and coefficient correlation varied respectively from 1 to 11.5° and 0.4 to 1.00 [5,30,37,41,43,48,50,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Dejnabadi, 2006, Estimation and visualization of sagittal kinematics of lower limbs orientation using body-fixed sensors, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Blair, S., Duthie, G., Robertson, S., Hopkins, W., and Ball, K. (2018). Concurrent validation of an inertial measurement system to quantify kicking biomechanics in four football codes. J. Biomech. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., and Plamondon, A. (2016). Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Shoulder SEM and ICC for inter-rater reliability ranged from 4.2 to 7.8° and 0.71 to 0.99.

    “SEM and ICC for inter-raterreliability ranged respectively from 4.2 to 7.8° and 0.71 to 0.99 [28,66].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Schiefer, 2015, A technical support tool for joint range of motion determination in functional diagnostics—An inter-rater study, J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neck cervical rotation showed poorer ICC (<0.8), while flexion/extension and lateral flexion showed excellent reliability (ICC ≥0.8).

    “Cervical rotation showed poorer ICC (two studies with ICC < 0.8), while flexion/extension and lateral flexion showed excellent reliability (ICC ≥ 0.8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    For elbow reliability, one study showed excellent reliability in every movement direction (CMC ≥0.9) and the other presented poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.2 to 0.77).

    “One study showed excellent reliability in every movement direction (CMC ≥ 0.9) and the other presented poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.2 to 0.77) [28,66].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Schiefer, 2015, A technical support tool for joint range of motion determination in functional diagnostics—An inter-rater study, J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Ankle RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 0.4 to 18.8° and 0.33 to 0.99.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 0.4 to 18.8° and 0.33 to 0.99 [29,37,41,43,53,54,55,57,59,62,63].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [29] Akins, 2015, Reliability and validity of instrumented soccer equipment, J. Appl. Biomech. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., and Plamondon, A. (2016). Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [41] Lebel, K., Boissy, P., Nguyen, H., and Duval, C. (2017). Inertial measurement systems for segments and joints kinematics assessment: Towards an understanding of the variations in sensors accuracy. BioMed. Eng. Online, 16. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for neck reliability is moderate (three studies, 48 participants, one HQ and two MQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the neck is considered to be moderate (three studies, total of 48 participants [10 to 20 participants/study], one HQ study and two MQ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Neck SEM and ICC for inter-rater reliability ranged from 1.2 to 9.4° and 0.64 to 0.99.

    “Standard error of the mean (SEM) and ICC for inter-rater reliability ranged respectively from 1.2 to 9.4° and from 0.64 to 0.99 [64,65,66].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [64] Duc, 2014, A wearable inertial system to assess the cervical spine mobility: Comparison with an optoelectronic-based motion capture evaluation, Med. Eng. Phys. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65] Kim, H., Shin, S.-H., Kim, J.-K., Park, Y.-J., Oh, H.-S., and Park, Y.-B. (2013). Cervical Coupling Motion Characteristics in Healthy People Using a Wireless Inertial Measurement Unit. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med., 2013. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Schiefer, 2015, A technical support tool for joint range of motion determination in functional diagnostics—An inter-rater study, J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Scapula inter-rater reliability is fair to good for retraction-protraction and mediolateral rotation, but poor to fair for anterior-posterior tilt.

    “Inter-rater reliability is considered as fair to good for scapular retraction–protraction and scapular mediolateral rotation (r = 0.59 to 0.91), but as poor to fair for anterior–posterior tilt (r = 0.32 to 0.87) [67].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [67] Wiertsema, 2014, Reliability and precision of 3D wireless measurement of scapular kinematics, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for the ankle joint is strong (11 studies, 141 participants, three HQ and nine MQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the ankle joint is considered to be strong (11 studies, total of 141 participants [three to 26 participants/study], three HQ and nine MQ studies).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The body of evidence for elbow reliability is conflicting (two studies, 30 participants).

    “The body of evidence for the elbow is considered to be conflicting as the two studies included presented inconsistent results (two studies, total of 30 participants [10 to 20 participants/study]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for shoulder reliability is limited (two studies, 30 participants, one HQ and one MQ study).

    “The body of evidence for the shoulder is considered to be limited (two studies, total of 30 participants (10 to 20 participants/study], one HQ study and one MQ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Knee intra-rater reliability was fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements (good for walking ICC 0.4 to 0.74 and poor for jumping ICC ≤0.39).

    “Intra-rater reliability was fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements performed (good for walking [ICC from 0.4 to 0.74] and poor for jumping [ICC ≤ 0.39] [45,53,59]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [45] Cutti, 2008, Ambulatory measurement of shoulder and elbow kinematics through inertial and magnetic sensors, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Al-Amri, M., Nicholas, K., Button, K., Sparkes, V., Sheeran, L., and Davies, J.L. (2018). Inertial Measurement Units for Clinical Movement Analysis: Reliability and Concurrent Validity. Sensors, 18. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [59] Zhang, 2013, Concurrent validation of Xsens MVN measurement of lower limb joint angular kinematics, Physiol. Meas. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Trunk reliability results are consistent and demonstrate good to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥0.8 except coronal plane fair to excellent 0.67 to 0.93).

    “Results from these three studies are consistent and demonstrate good to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥ 0.8 except for coronal plane which is fair to excellent (0.67 to 0.93)) [46,66,68].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [46] Bauer, 2015, Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Schiefer, 2015, A technical support tool for joint range of motion determination in functional diagnostics—An inter-rater study, J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [68] Yun, 2015, Individual characteristics of reliable lumbar coupling motions, Eur. Spine J. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for trunk reliability is moderate (three studies, 63 participants, two HQ and one MQ study).

    “The body of evidence for the trunk is considered to be moderate (three studies, total of 63 participants [19 to 24 participants/study], two HQ and one MQ study).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Hip intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements (good for walking ICC 0.4 to 0.74 and poor for jumping ICC ≤0.39).

    “Intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements performed (good for walking [ICC of 0.4 to 0.74] and poor for jumping [ICC ≤ 0.39] [46,53,66]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [46] Bauer, 2015, Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Al-Amri, M., Nicholas, K., Button, K., Sparkes, V., Sheeran, L., and Davies, J.L. (2018). Inertial Measurement Units for Clinical Movement Analysis: Reliability and Concurrent Validity. Sensors, 18. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Schiefer, 2015, A technical support tool for joint range of motion determination in functional diagnostics—An inter-rater study, J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for wrist reliability is limited (two studies, 30 participants, one HQ and one MQ study).

    “The body of evidence for the wrist is considered to be limited (two studies, total of 30 participants [10 to 20 participants/study], one HQ study and one MQ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body of evidence for knee reliability is moderate (three studies, 56 participants, one HQ and two MQ studies).

    “The body of evidence for the knee is considered to be moderate (three studies, total of 56 participants [10 to 26 participants/study], one HQ and two MQ study).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Walmsley et al.'s results for the upper limbs are in agreement with those presented in this review.

    “Their results for the upper limbs are in agreement with those presented here.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Walmsley, 2018, Measurement of Upper Limb Range of Motion Using Wearable Sensors: A Systematic Review, Sports Med. Open source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    It was not possible in this systematic review to reach a conclusion on the best calibration procedure for a given movement/context, as many studies did not identify or sufficiently describe their calibration procedure.

    “It was not possible in this systematic review to reach a conclusion on the best calibration procedure for a given movement/context, as many studies did not identify or sufficiently described their calibration procedure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Lower limb and trunk movements are mostly performed in closed chains and in one plane of movement, providing more consistent results, except for movements with smaller ROM (e.g., knee abduction/adduction or ankle internal/external rotation).

    “In contrast, lower limb and trunk movements are mostly performed in closed chains and in one plane of movement, providing more consistent results, except for movements with smaller ROM (e.g., knee abduction/adduction or ankle internal/external rotation).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The validity of motion capture and M/IMUs for trunk and lower limb joints is similar except for the rotation component, suggesting that M/IMUs could be a good alternative to motion capture systems for movement measurements in the sagittal and frontal planes, but not in the transverse plane.

    “The validity of motion capture and M/IMUs for trunk and lower limb joints are similar except for the rotation component, suggesting that M/IMUs could be a good alternative to motion capture systems for movement measurements in the sagittal and frontal planes, but not in the transverse plane.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The complexity of the movement leads to more variability in abduction/adduction for the upper limbs.

    “However, the complexity of the movement leads to more variability in abduction/adduction, which needs to be considered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Most of the studies included in this review are of moderate to high quality, suggesting a low risk of bias in conclusions.

    “Most of the studies included in this review are of moderate to high quality, suggesting a low risk of bias in conclusions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The absolute error reported for M/IMU ranged from 0.3° to 9.9°, which is better than the goniometer and inclinometer reliability (inclinometer: 1° to 32°; goniometer: 1° to 45°).

    “Moreover, the absolute error reported for M/IMU ranged from 0.3° to 9.9° which is better than the goniometer and inclinometer reliability (inclinometer: 1° to 32°; goniometer: 1° to 45°) [69].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [69] Roy, J.-S., Desmeules, F., Frémont, P., Dionne, C., and MacDermid, J. (2015). L’évaluation Clinique, les Traitements et le Retour en Emploi de Travailleurs Souffrant D’atteintes de la Coiffe des Rotateurs—Bilan des Connaissances, Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST). R-885.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Only two articles had a good score on the sample-size criterion, but based mainly on the fact that a justification was provided.

    “Only two articles had a good score on this criterion, but based mainly on the fact that a justification was provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The majority of included studies had the same limitations: small sample sizes without justification, targeting only one psychometric property, and lack of description of inclusion/exclusion criteria.

    “However, the majority of studies had the same limitations: small sample sizes without justification, targeting only one psychometric property, and lack of description of inclusion/exclusion criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite the high number of studies included in this review (42 articles), there are only twelve high-quality studies, which restricted conclusions.

    “Furthermore, despite the high number of studies included in this review (42 articles), there are only twelve high quality studies, which restricted conclusions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The factors of small sample sizes without justification, targeting only one psychometric property, and lack of description of inclusion/exclusion criteria lowered study quality but did not interfere with the precision of the reported data.

    “These factors have lowered study quality but did not interfere with precision of the reported data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The complexity of the movements assessed varied widely between studies, and M/IMU systems have lower validity in complex movements than in simple movements.

    “The complexity of the movements assessed varied widely between studies and, as mentioned, M/IMU systems have lower validity in complex movements than in simple movements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Because a restricted number of articles have been conducted on M/IMU reliability, it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the best specific procedures (e.g., calibration) to ensure reliable data.

    “However, as a restricted number of articles have been conducted on M/IMU reliability it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the best specific procedures (e.g., the calibration) to ensure reliable data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Wearable sensors are wireless, small, and light, and have been suggested to overcome the lack of portability of laboratory systems.

    “The use of wearable sensors has been suggested to overcome this lack of portability, as they are wireless, small, and light [3].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Godfrey, 2008, Direct measurement of human movement by accelerometry, Med. Eng. Phys. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Motion capture systems are recognized as the gold standard for joint angle calculation and movement quantification.

    “Motion capture systems are recognized as the gold standard for joint angle calculation.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
      “commonly recognized as the gold standard for movement quantification [2]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Ceseracciu, E., Sawacha, Z., and Cobelli, C. (2014). Comparison of Markerless and Marker-Based Motion Capture Technologies through Simultaneous Data Collection during Gait: Proof of Concept. PLoS ONE, 9. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    M/IMUs provide more accurate kinematic data than accelerometers alone while being wireless, robust, and portable.

    “M/IMUs provide more accurate kinematic data than accelerometers alone, while still being wireless, robust, and portable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Motion capture systems can only be used in controlled laboratory environments due to lack of portability and required technical expertise, limiting their clinical applications.

    “studies using these systems are restricted to laboratory settings for technical reasons, which may lead to findings that are not representative of real-life context”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “However, these systems can only be used in controlled environments due to their lack of portability and to the technical expertise required, thereby limiting their potential clinical applications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The other systematic review published in 2018 focused only on the upper limb and provided scarce details regarding task complexity.

    “The other systematic review, published in 2018, focused only on the upper limb and provided only scarce details regarding the complexity of the tasks evaluated, a problem highlighted by the first systematic review as being one of the most challenging aspects for clinical evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Williams, 2010, The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis, Phys. Ther. Rev. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The review followed PRISMA guidelines.

    “This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, BMJ source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The two quality assessment grids taken together allow a complete assessment of overall article quality.

    “These two grids taken together allow a complete assessment of the overall article quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is a need for a synthesis and an update for whole body kinematics.

    “This highlights the need for a synthesis and an update for whole body kinematics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus and a third reviewer available if needed.

    “Titles and abstracts of the identified papers were screened independently by two reviewers (IP: Isabelle Poitras and FD: Frédérique Dupuis) to identify eligible articles.”
    • Also stated in: § 2.2. Data Sources · plain
      “Any discrepancy was resolved during a consensus meeting, and a third reviewer (JSR: Jean-Sébastien Roy) was available if needed but turned out not to be required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The first systematic review published in 2010 concluded that M/IMUs could be a valid tool to measure range of motion, but results were variable across joints and tasks.

    “The first systematic review published in 2010 concluded that M/IMUs could be a valid tool to measure range of motion, but results were variable across joints and tasks performed [8].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Kok, 2016, Magnetometer Calibration Using Inertial Sensors, IEEE Sens. J. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All included articles were independently critically appraised by two reviewers using COSMIN and MacDermid tools.

    “All included articles were independently critically appraised by two reviewers (IP and FD) using two different quality assessment tools: consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) [21] and the critical appraisal tool by MacDermid (2008) [22].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [21] Terwee, 2007, Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires, J. Clin. Epidemiol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] MacDermid, J.C. (2008). Critical appraisal of study design for psychometric articles evaluation form and interpretation guide. Evidence Based Rehabilitation: A Guide to Practice, Slack. [3rd ed.].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each of two reviewers performed complete data extraction of half of the included articles, and the extraction was corroborated or completed by the other reviewer.

    “Each of the two reviewers performed a complete data extraction of half of the included articles and the extraction was corroborated or completed by the other reviewer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO in August 2018 (CRD42018104775).

    “was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in August 2018 (CRD42018104775).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Ecological tasks related to activities of daily living generally require complex movements, the use of both upper and lower limb joints, movements in more than one plane, and irregular movement speed, which all drastically affect M/IMU system performance.

    “Indeed, ecological tasks related to activities of daily living generally require complex movements, the use of both upper and lower limb joints, movements in more than one plane, and irregular movement speed, which all drastically affect system performance (e.g., walking at different speed vs. running [62,63]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [62] Mifsud, 2014, Portable Inertial Motion Unit for Continuous Assessment of In-shoe Foot Movement, Procedia Eng. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [63] Rouhani, H., Favre, J., Crevoisier, X., and Aminian, K. (2012). Measurement of multi-segment foot joint angles during gait using a wearable system. J. Biomech. Eng., 134. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Proper calibration (proper alignment of the M/IMU axes with the anatomical segment axes) is an important factor contributing to better reliability, as different calibration protocols may result in substantially different results.

    “Proper calibration (proper alignment of the M/IMU axes with the anatomical segment axes) is another important factor contributing to better reliability, as different calibration protocols may result in substantially different results [28].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bouvier, 2015, Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A poor calibration in which sensors are not aligned with the body segment could interfere with data quality, because the initial calibration is the reference to calculate joint angulation during body movement.

    “As the initial calibration is the reference to calculate joint angulation during body movement, a poor calibration in which sensors are not aligned with the body segment could interfere with data quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    For the upper limbs, flexion/extension movements should be considered valid in every context.

    “For the upper limbs, flexion/extension movements should be considered valid in every context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The weaknesses of each sensor in the estimation of joint kinematics could have separately impacted the accuracy/reliability of M/IMUs, as sensor fusion does not fully compensate for all sensor limitations.

    “Another important aspect to consider, as discussed in the Materials and Methods section, is that the weaknesses of each sensor in the estimation of joint kinematics could have separately impacted the accuracy/reliability of M/IMUs as sensor fusion does not fully compensate for all sensors limitations [9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Sabatini, 2011, Estimating Three-Dimensional Orientation of Human Body Parts by Inertial/Magnetic Sensing, Sensors source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Shoulder rotation is more influenced by the biomechanical model than shoulder flexion-extension or abduction/adduction.

    “According to Robert-Lachaine et al., shoulder rotation is also more influenced by the biomechanical model than shoulder flexion–extension or abduction/adduction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., and Plamondon, A. (2016). Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Special considerations will be needed in pathological populations because most calibration procedures require specific posture or movement, which could be challenging for some populations (e.g., cerebral palsy).

    “However, special considerations will be needed in pathological populations as most of the calibration procedures require specific posture or movement, which could be challenging for some populations (e.g., cerebral palsy).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The validity and reliability results presented in this systematic review represent the use of M/IMU in controlled environments, as all included studies were performed in laboratory settings.

    “Limitations of this research include that the validity and reliability results presented in this systematic review represented the use of M/IMU in controlled environments as all the included studies were performed in laboratory settings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    M/IMUs provide valid data to assess range of motion and joint orientation, so rehabilitation research and health care services could benefit from them.

    “Rehabilitation research and health care services could benefit from M/IMUs as they provide valid data to assess range of motion and joint orientation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because validity has been demonstrated in a majority of body joints for healthy subjects, it is possible to assess psychometric properties in pathological populations.

    “As the validity has been demonstrated in a majority of body joints for healthy subjects, it opens the possibility to assess psychometric properties in pathological populations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    More complex movements would probably show less reliable results.

    “Here also, more complex movements would probably show less reliable results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The heterogeneity of movements studied across the 42 articles is an important risk of bias and did not allow us to perform quantitative analysis.

    “Another important risk of bias is the heterogeneity of movements studied across the 42 articles, which did not allow us to perform quantitative analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The main advantage of M/IMUs is that they can provide accurate data at a lower cost than a motion-capture system.

    “The main advantage of M/IMUs is that they can provide accurate data at a lower cost than a motion-capture system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To lower the risk of bias, we gave less impact to studies performed on only one participant.

    “To lower this risk of bias, we gave less impact to studies performed on only one participant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
86 of 86

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Findings from different M/IMU systems can be generalized to M/IMU as a class.

    “The Xsens was the most studied M/IMU system (15 articles) while other systems were investigated in three or less articles (e.g., Cuela or Physilog).”
    “M/IMU should be considered as a valid tool to assess whole body range of motion, but further studies are needed to standardize technical procedures to obtain more accurate data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The reference measures used in included studies (motion-capture systems or goniometers) provide valid criterion measurements for joint angles.

    “compared M/IMUs to a gold standard (motion-capture system for lab systems or goniometer for clinical measures) for the measurement (accelerometer, gyroscope with or without magnetometer) of the range of motion data”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Validity and reliability indices from studies using different protocols and data acquisition systems are comparable enough to be synthesized descriptively.

    “Due to the heterogeneity of protocols and data acquisition systems used in the selected articles, results of this systematic review could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. For this reason, only a descriptive synthesis of results was performed.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple sensors used to monitor various aspects of a target may be independent of each other, not designed to work together or provide a unified view of the system being monitored.

    “Besides, multiple sensors are used to monitor various aspects of the target (Borchers and Pieler 2010; Dong et al. 2022). These sensors may be independent of each other (Poitras et al. 2019), meaning that they are not designed to work together or provide a unified view of the system being monitored.”

    From Artificial intelligence enhanced sensors - enabling technologies to next-generation healthcare and biomedical platform (2023) · cites this paper as Poitras et al. 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Hip results fall outside their stated ranges

    Major

    The hip section first gives a maximum RMSE of 9.3° and a minimum correlation of 0.53, then reports hip-rotation results of 11.8° and 0.35.

  • Walking ICCs called good are below the paper's good threshold

    Minor

    The hip reliability section calls walking ICCs of 0.4-0.74 good, although the paper defines values below 0.5 as poor and 0.5-0.75 as moderate. The knee reliability section repeats the same classification.

  • Wrist errors exceed the stated maximum

    Minor

    The wrist section gives 30° as the maximum RMSE but subsequently describes results from one study as higher than 30°.

  • Ankle study-quality counts exceed the number of studies

    Minor

    The ankle section reports 11 studies, but its three high-quality and nine moderate-quality studies total 12.

    Reported 11 · recomputed 12

  • Ten articles are claimed but eleven are cited

    Minor

    The sentence says ten articles reported results for various complex movements, but its citation list contains eleven distinct articles.

  • A single high-quality pelvis study is assigned the wrong evidence level

    Minor

    The stated evidence scale assigns one high-quality study to limited evidence, but the pelvis reliability section calls its evidence moderate on that basis.

  • The cited 2010 systematic review is a 2016 magnetometer paper

    Minor

    The introduction cites reference 8 for a systematic review published in 2010, but reference 8 is a magnetometer-calibration paper published in 2016.

  • The number of high-quality articles changes

    Minor

    The methodological-quality results classify 11 articles as high quality, whereas the discussion says there are 12 high-quality studies.

8 of 8

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Poitras, I., Dupuis, F., Bielmann, M., Campeau-Lecours, A., Mercier, C., Bouyer, L., & Roy, J.-S.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration and Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1M 2S8, Canada
Corresponding author
Roy, Jean-Sébastien
ORCID
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-03-31
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
1555
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/s19071555
PMC
PMC6479822
OpenAlex
W2935004960
Semantic Scholar
f7f3937fe66d64415669b70ed28455e098c74bda
Cited by
309
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 6
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
Keywords
wearable sensors, inertial measurement unit, joint angle estimation, criterion validity, reliability statistics, range of motion, motion capture alternative, task complexity, lower limb joints
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Joints, Movement, Reproducibility of Results, Range of Motion, Articular, Databases, Factual, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review