The Use of Wearable Sensors for Preventing, Assessing, and Informing Recovery from Sport-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Scoping Review

Abstract

Wearable technologies are often indicated as tools that can enable the in-field collection of quantitative biomechanical data, unobtrusively, for extended periods of time, and with few spatial limitations. Despite many claims about their potential for impact in the area of injury prevention and management, there seems to be little attention to grounding this potential in biomechanical research linking quantities from wearables to musculoskeletal injuries, and to assessing the readiness of these biomechanical approaches for being implemented in real practice. We performed a systematic scoping review to characterise and critically analyse the state of the art of research using wearable technologies to study musculoskeletal injuries in sport from a biomechanical perspective. A total of 4952 articles were retrieved from the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases; 165 were included. Multiple study features—such as research design, scope, experimental settings, and applied context—were summarised and assessed. We also proposed an injury-research readiness classification tool to gauge the maturity of biomechanical approaches using wearables. Five main conclusions emerged from this review, which we used as a springboard to propose guidelines and good practices for future research and dissemination in the field.

Nonlinear Dynamic Measures of Walking in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Scoping Review

“…In some studies, only one inertial sensor (placed on the trunk) was used; in others, two or three inertial sensors were used (placed on the trunk and ankles). Using different sensors with various specifications (sensors' range and sample rate differences) and different sensor placements on the body can be another reason for the variability in the reported NDA measures values [77]. An inertial sensor should be placed so that the maximum movements and signals can be captured [75,76].…”

Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor‐software system: A validation study

“…IMU sensors are valid instruments which can be applied in different field‐applications such as clinical or scientific movement analysis, monitoring of activities of daily living as well as sports performance assessment. 25 , 26 , 27 Some specific examples may be the assessment of postural sway, 28 gait analysis, 29 , 30 , 31 the evaluation of jumping characteristics, 32 fall detection. 33 , 34 …”

“…IMU sensors are valid instruments which can be applied in different field-applications such as clinical or scientific movement analysis, monitoring of activities of daily living as well as sports performance assessment. [25][26][27] Some specific examples may be the assessment of postural sway, 28 gait analysis, [29][30][31] the evaluation of jumping characteristics, 32 fall detection. 33,34 Concerning upper limb kinematics, Morrow et al found an accuracy of shoulder flexion angles up to 7°during a simulated surgery compared to the gold standard.…”

Sensor-based intervention to enhance movement control of the spine in low back pain: Protocol for a quasi-randomized controlled trial

“…Based on history, physical examination and evaluation of at least one medical image obtained in the past 12 months (X-ray, CT, MRI), serious pathology of the spine will be excluded. A high Body Mass Index (BMI) could hamper the planned sensor-based movement control intervention as a result of movement artifacts ( 22 ); therefore, patients are excluded if the BMI is higher than 35 (kg/m 2 ). To avoid the risk of electromagnetic interference with the inertial sensors, patients with implanted electronic devices of any kind are excluded from this study ( 23 ).…”