Dataset Information

Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Units on Lower Extremity Kinematics During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are useful in monitoring running and alerting running-related injuries in various sports settings. However, the quantitative summaries of the validity and reliability of the measurements from IMUs during running are still lacking. The purpose of this review was to investigate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of IMUs for measuring gait spatiotemporal outcomes and lower extremity kinematics of health adults during running.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) evaluated the validity or reliability of measurements from IMUs, (2) measured specific kinematic outcomes, (3) compared measurements using IMUs with those obtained using reference systems, (4) collected data during running, (5) assessed human beings and (6) were published in English. Eligible articles were reviewed using a modified quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of validity and reliability.

Results

Twenty-five articles were included in the systematic review, and data from 12 were pooled for meta-analysis. The methodological quality of studies ranged from low to moderate. Concurrent validity is excellent for stride length (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.937 (0.859, 0.972), p < 0.001), step frequency (ICC (95% CI) = 0.926 (0.896, 0.948), r (95% CI) = 0.989 (0.957, 0.997), p < 0.001) and ankle angle in the sagittal plane (r (95% CI) = 0.939 (0.544, 0.993), p = 0.002), moderate to excellent for stance time (ICC (95% CI) = 0.664 (0.354, 0.845), r (95% CI) = 0.811 (0.701, 0.881), p < 0.001) and good for running speed (ICC (95% CI) = 0.848 (0.523, 0.958), p = 0.0003). The summary Fisher's Z value of flight time was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). Similarly, the stance time showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.954 (0.903, 0.978), p < 0.001) and step frequency showed good test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.896 (0.837, 0.933), p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Findings in the current review support IMUs measurement of running gait spatiotemporal parameters, but IMUs measurement of running kinematics on lower extremity joints needs to be reported with caution in healthy adults.

Trial registration

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021279395.

SUBMITTER: Zeng Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9237201 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe ability to measure joint kinematics in natural environments over long durations using inertial measurement units (IMUs) could enable at-home monitoring and personalized treatment of neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. However, drift, or the accumulation of error over time, inhibits the accurate measurement of movement over long durations. We sought to develop an open-source workflow to estimate lower extremity joint kinematics from IMU data that was accurate and capable of assessing and mitigating drift.MethodsWe computed IMU-based estimates of kinematics using sensor fusion and an inverse kinematics approach with a constrained biomechanical model. We measured kinematics for 11 subjects as they performed two 10-min trials: walking and a repeated sequence of varied lower-extremity movements. To validate the approach, we compared the joint angles computed with IMU orientations to the joint angles computed from optical motion capture using root mean square (RMS) difference and Pearson correlations, and estimated drift using a linear regression on each subject's RMS differences over time.ResultsIMU-based kinematic estimates agreed with optical motion capture; median RMS differences over all subjects and all minutes were between 3 and 6 degrees for all joint angles except hip rotation and correlation coefficients were moderate to strong (r = 0.60-0.87). We observed minimal drift in the RMS differences over 10 min; the average slopes of the linear fits to these data were near zero (- 0.14-0.17 deg/min).ConclusionsOur workflow produced joint kinematics consistent with those estimated by optical motion capture, and could mitigate kinematic drift even in the trials of continuous walking without rest, which may obviate the need for explicit sensor recalibration (e.g. sitting or standing still for a few seconds or zero-velocity updates) used in current drift-mitigation approaches when studying similar activities. This could enable long-duration measurements, bringing the field one step closer to estimating kinematics in natural environments.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Measuring coronal plane gait kinematics of the pelvis and trunk during rehabilitation of participants with a lower extremity amputation is important to detect asymmetries in gait which are hypothesised as associated with secondary complaints. The aim of this study was to test the reproducibility and discriminant validity of a three-dimensional (3-D; inertial measurement units) and a two-dimensional (2-D; video-based) system. METHODS:We tested the test-retest and inter-rater reproducibility of both systems and the 2-D system, respectively, in participants with a lower extremity amputation (group 1) and healthy subjects (group 2). The discriminant validity was determined with a within-group comparison for the 3-D system and with a between-group comparison for both systems. RESULTS:Both system showed to be test-retest reliable, both in group 1 (2-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.52-0.83; 3-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.81-0.95) and in group 2 (3-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.33-0.92; 2-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.54-0.95). The 2-D system was also inter-rater reliable (group 1: ICC2.1agreement 0.80-0.92; group 2: ICC2.1agreement 0.39-0.90). The within-group comparison of the 3-D system revealed a statistically significant asymmetry of 0.4°-0.5° in group 1 and no statistically significant asymmetry in group 2. The between-group comparison revealed that the maximum amplitude towards the residual limb (MARL) in the low back (3-D system) and the (residual) limb-trunk angle (2-D system) were significantly larger with a mean difference of 1.2° and 6.4°, respectively, than the maximum amplitude of healthy subjects. However, these average differences were smaller than the smallest detectable change (SDC) of group 1 for both the MARL (SDCagreement: 1.5°) and the residual limb-trunk angle (SDCagreement: 6.7°-7.6°). CONCLUSION:The 3-D and 2-D systems tested in this study were not sensitive enough to detect real differences within and between participants with a lower extremity amputation and healthy subjects although promising reproducibility parameters for some of the outcome measures.