Myotest efficiency in the mechanical analysis of the stride

Deflandre, Dorian; Miny, Kevin; Schwartz, Cédric; Dardenne, Nadia; Leclerc, Anne-France; Bury, Thierry

doi:10.23736/s0393-3660.17.03568-9

Cited by 2 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 541 healthy adults (mean [sd] sample size: 22 [ 12 ] participants; range: 7–51 participants; 151 females and 354 males; sex was not described in Fox et al [ 41 ] and Li et al [ 48 ]) were included in this review. In terms of the population, it has been divided it into four categories, namely competitive runners ( n = 111) [ 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 51 , 52 ], experienced runners ( n = 28) [ 43 , 53 ], amateur runners ( n = 200) [ 33 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 , 54 , 55 ] and non-runners ( n = 202) [ 12 , 34 , 35 , 38 – 40 , 44 , 46 , 48 – 50 ]. The most common IMU systems used were the Xsens system ( n = 3) [ 12 , 34 , 53 ] and RunScribe™ system ( n = 3) [ 38 , 42 , 45 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using two ( n = 9) [ 32 , 35 , 40 – 42 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 54 ] or one ( n = 8) [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 52 ] IMU was the most preferable, and some studies used five ( n = 1) [ 49 ], seven ( n = 3) [ 39 , 48 , 50 ], eight ( n = 1) [ 50 ] or seventeen ( n = 2) [ 12 , 53 ] IMUs. In addition, studies installed IMUs in diverse sites, including dorsum of the foot [ 12 , 32 , 34 , 38 – 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 ], ankle [ 38 , 48 , 51 , 55 ], heel [ 38 , 47 , 55 ], shank [ 12 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 53 ], knee [ 48 ], thigh [ 12 , 35 , 39 , 50 , 53 ], hip [ 46 , 48 ], waist [ 36 , 37 , 43 , 53 ], sacrum [ 12 , 49 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, studies installed IMUs in diverse sites, including dorsum of the foot [ 12 , 32 , 34 , 38 – 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 ], ankle [ 38 , 48 , 51 , 55 ], heel [ 38 , 47 , 55 ], shank [ 12 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 53 ], knee [ 48 ], thigh [ 12 , 35 , 39 , 50 , 53 ], hip [ 46 , 48 ], waist [ 36 , 37 , 43 , 53 ], sacrum [ 12 , 49 , 50 ], chest [ 38 , 41 ], sternum [ 12 , 52 , 53 ], back [ 33 , 39 , 41 ], upper arm [ 12 , 53 ], lower arm [ 12 , 53 ], hand [ 12 , 53 ], shoulder [ 12 , 53 ], head [ 12 , 53 ] and shoes midsole [ 54 , 55 ]. The most common sampling frequencies used in assessing running were 200 Hz ( n = 6) [ 33 , 41 , 45 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Squares represent Fisher’s Z; bars indicate 95% confidence intervals and diamonds as pooled data. Ammann et al 2016a (combined speeds), 2016b (maximal sprinting speed), 2016c (intense training speed), 2016d (normal training speed) [ 32 ]; Deflandre et al 2018a (8 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2018b (16 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2018c (8 km/h, IMUs vs Optogait), 2018d (16 km/h, IMUs vs Optogait) [ 37 ]; García-Pinillos et al,2019a (IMUs vs optical motion capture system, IMUs: Stryd™), 2019b (IMUs vs optical motion capture system, IMUs: RunScribe™) [ 42 ]; Gindre et al, 2016a (12 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016b (15 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016c (18 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016d (21 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016e (12 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016f (15 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016 g (18 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016 h (21 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump) [ 43 ]; Koldenhoven and Hertel, 2018a (left limb), 2018b (right limb) [ 45 ]. SE standard error, IV inverse variance, CI confidence interval …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stance time Data from four MQ and one LQ studies suggested that the validity for stance time derived from IMUs, as reported by ICCs, was moderate (ICC (95% CI) = 0.664 (0.354, 0.845), I 2 = 95%, p = 0.0003) (Fig. 2 ) [ 32 , 37 , 42 , 43 , 45 ], but pooled r values from one MQ and two LQ studies indicated validity for stance time from IMUs was excellent ( r (95% CI) = 0.811 (0.701, 0.881), I 2 = 99%, p < 0.001) (Fig. 3 ) [ 36 , 42 , 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Zeng

Liu

et al. 2022

Sports Med - Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Zeng

Liu

et al. 2022

Sports Med - Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis

Benson

Räisänen

Clermont

et al. 2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to monitor running biomechanics in real-world settings, but IMUs are often used within a laboratory. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe how IMUs are used to record running biomechanics in both laboratory and real-world conditions. We included peer-reviewed journal articles that used IMUs to assess gait quality during running. We extracted data on running conditions (indoor/outdoor, surface, speed, and distance), device type and location, metrics, participants, and purpose and study design. A total of 231 studies were included. Most (72%) studies were conducted indoors; and in 67% of all studies, the analyzed distance was only one step or stride or <200 m. The most common device type and location combination was a triaxial accelerometer on the shank (18% of device and location combinations). The most common analyzed metric was vertical/axial magnitude, which was reported in 64% of all studies. Most studies (56%) included recreational runners. For the past 20 years, studies using IMUs to record running biomechanics have mainly been conducted indoors, on a treadmill, at prescribed speeds, and over small distances. We suggest that future studies should move out of the lab to less controlled and more real-world environments.

show abstract

Myotest efficiency in the mechanical analysis of the stride

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About