Validity and reliability of wearable inertial sensors in healthy adult walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biomechanics
Gait
Inertial measurement units
Inertial sensors
Reliability
Review
Validity
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 05 2020
11 05 2020
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
accepted:
07
04
2020
entrez:
13
5
2020
pubmed:
13
5
2020
medline:
28
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer the ability to measure walking gait through a variety of biomechanical outcomes (e.g., spatiotemporal, kinematics, other). Although many studies have assessed their validity and reliability, there remains no quantitive summary of this vast body of literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the i) concurrent validity and ii) test-retest reliability of IMUs for measuring biomechanical gait outcomes during level walking in healthy adults. Five electronic databases were searched for journal articles assessing the validity or reliability of IMUs during healthy adult walking. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for studies to be included, before two reviewers examined the methodological quality of all included studies. When sufficient data were present for a given biomechanical outcome, data were meta-analyzed on Pearson correlation coefficients (r) or intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for validity and reliability, respectively. Alternatively, qualitative summaries of outcomes were conducted on those that could not be meta-analyzed. A total of 82 articles, assessing the validity or reliability of over 100 outcomes, were included in this review. Seventeen biomechanical outcomes, primarily spatiotemporal parameters, were meta-analyzed. The validity and reliability of step and stride times were found to be excellent. Similarly, the validity and reliability of step and stride length, as well as swing and stance time, were found to be good to excellent. Alternatively, spatiotemporal parameter variability and symmetry displayed poor to moderate validity and reliability. IMUs were also found to display moderate reliability for the assessment of local dynamic stability during walking. The remaining biomechanical outcomes were qualitatively summarized to provide a variety of recommendations for future IMU research. The findings of this review demonstrate the excellent validity and reliability of IMUs for mean spatiotemporal parameters during walking, but caution the use of spatiotemporal variability and symmetry metrics without strict protocol. Further, this work tentatively supports the use of IMUs for joint angle measurement and other biomechanical outcomes such as stability, regularity, and segmental accelerations. Unfortunately, the strength of these recommendations are limited based on the lack of high-quality studies for each outcome, with underpowered and/or unjustified sample sizes (sample size median 12; range: 2-95) being the primary limitation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer the ability to measure walking gait through a variety of biomechanical outcomes (e.g., spatiotemporal, kinematics, other). Although many studies have assessed their validity and reliability, there remains no quantitive summary of this vast body of literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the i) concurrent validity and ii) test-retest reliability of IMUs for measuring biomechanical gait outcomes during level walking in healthy adults.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched for journal articles assessing the validity or reliability of IMUs during healthy adult walking. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for studies to be included, before two reviewers examined the methodological quality of all included studies. When sufficient data were present for a given biomechanical outcome, data were meta-analyzed on Pearson correlation coefficients (r) or intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for validity and reliability, respectively. Alternatively, qualitative summaries of outcomes were conducted on those that could not be meta-analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 82 articles, assessing the validity or reliability of over 100 outcomes, were included in this review. Seventeen biomechanical outcomes, primarily spatiotemporal parameters, were meta-analyzed. The validity and reliability of step and stride times were found to be excellent. Similarly, the validity and reliability of step and stride length, as well as swing and stance time, were found to be good to excellent. Alternatively, spatiotemporal parameter variability and symmetry displayed poor to moderate validity and reliability. IMUs were also found to display moderate reliability for the assessment of local dynamic stability during walking. The remaining biomechanical outcomes were qualitatively summarized to provide a variety of recommendations for future IMU research.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review demonstrate the excellent validity and reliability of IMUs for mean spatiotemporal parameters during walking, but caution the use of spatiotemporal variability and symmetry metrics without strict protocol. Further, this work tentatively supports the use of IMUs for joint angle measurement and other biomechanical outcomes such as stability, regularity, and segmental accelerations. Unfortunately, the strength of these recommendations are limited based on the lack of high-quality studies for each outcome, with underpowered and/or unjustified sample sizes (sample size median 12; range: 2-95) being the primary limitation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32393301
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00685-3
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00685-3
pmc: PMC7216606
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
62Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
Pays : Canada
Références
Sensors (Basel). 2010;10(12):11556-65
pubmed: 22163542
Biomed Eng Online. 2015 Nov 23;14:106
pubmed: 26597696
Gait Posture. 2008 Feb;27(2):357-9
pubmed: 17604630
Gait Posture. 2015 Oct;42(4):409-14
pubmed: 26341531
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Aug;62:210-23
pubmed: 27395370
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jul;88(7):907-15
pubmed: 17601473
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;19(1):
pubmed: 30583508
Sensors (Basel). 2014 Apr 16;14(4):6891-909
pubmed: 24743160
Physiol Meas. 2013 Aug;34(8):N63-9
pubmed: 23893094
Sensors (Basel). 2019 Mar 31;19(7):
pubmed: 30935116
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Nov;59(11):3162-8
pubmed: 22955865
Gait Posture. 2009 Apr;29(3):444-8
pubmed: 19070494
J Biomech. 2017 Aug 16;61:193-198
pubmed: 28780187
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:217-223
pubmed: 28667903
Biomed Eng Online. 2018 May 9;17(1):58
pubmed: 29739456
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Aug 11;18(8):
pubmed: 30103512
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016 Jul;13(7):641-59
pubmed: 27309490
J Biomech. 2019 Feb 14;84:129-137
pubmed: 30630627
J Biomech. 2013 Jan 4;46(1):137-41
pubmed: 23159098
Gait Posture. 2011 Mar;33(3):366-72
pubmed: 21227697
Gait Posture. 2009 Oct;30(3):351-5
pubmed: 19628391
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2013 Apr;28(4):473-9
pubmed: 23522723
J Biomech. 2017 Apr 11;55:27-33
pubmed: 28302315
Gait Posture. 2016 Jul;48:194-201
pubmed: 27289221
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Dec;89(12):2293-6
pubmed: 19061741
Biomed Eng Online. 2017 May 15;16(1):56
pubmed: 28506273
J Biomech. 2019 May 24;89:123-127
pubmed: 31047695
Gait Posture. 2004 Jun;19(3):288-97
pubmed: 15125918
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Jun;20(2):297-305
pubmed: 16679506
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2009 Jul;29(4):271-6
pubmed: 19302230
Gait Posture. 2013 Feb;37(2):229-34
pubmed: 22877845
Gait Posture. 2008 Jan;27(1):160-3
pubmed: 17336070
Gait Posture. 2004 Aug;20(1):102-7
pubmed: 15196527
J Biomech. 1992 Sep;25(9):1007-15
pubmed: 1517261
J Biomech. 2018 Jan 3;66:137-144
pubmed: 29198369
PLoS One. 2014 May 27;9(5):e98395
pubmed: 24866262
Gait Posture. 2014 Apr;39(4):1146-8
pubmed: 24602974
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006 Mar 02;3:4
pubmed: 16512912
Age Ageing. 2009 Nov;38(6):745-8
pubmed: 19726433
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2017 Nov 27;62(6):615-622
pubmed: 28099115
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):537-42
pubmed: 11934425
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2010 Dec;48(12):1251-60
pubmed: 21042951
Gait Posture. 2011 Oct;34(4):443-50
pubmed: 21920755
Int J Sports Med. 2008 Apr;29(4):322-6
pubmed: 17879888
Med Eng Phys. 2015 Dec;37(12):1152-5
pubmed: 26483079
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Apr;61(4):1261-73
pubmed: 24658250
J Biomech. 2006;39(15):2863-72
pubmed: 16253263
Gait Posture. 2013 Apr;37(4):580-5
pubmed: 23103242
Gait Posture. 2016 Oct;50:42-46
pubmed: 27567451
Gait Posture. 2015 Sep;42(3):310-6
pubmed: 26163348
Gait Posture. 2017 Jun;55:87-93
pubmed: 28433867
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 Mar;13(1):81-8
pubmed: 15813409
Physiol Meas. 2014 May;35(5):N29-40
pubmed: 24711048
J Biomech. 2004 Jan;37(1):121-6
pubmed: 14672575
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:204-210
pubmed: 28666178
Med Eng Phys. 2019 Mar;65:68-77
pubmed: 30737118
Med Eng Phys. 2015 Apr;37(4):400-7
pubmed: 25749552
Gait Posture. 2013 Jan;37(1):49-54
pubmed: 22819009
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016 Nov;20(6):1521-1537
pubmed: 28113185
Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):485-9
pubmed: 24050952
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jan 30;6(1):e36
pubmed: 29382625
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012 Oct;108(1):129-37
pubmed: 22391334
Sensors (Basel). 2019 Jan 31;19(3):
pubmed: 30708957
Gait Posture. 2018 Jan;59:229-241
pubmed: 29096266
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Nov;79(11):1377-85
pubmed: 9821897
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016 May;20(3):838-847
pubmed: 25850097
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Nov;117(5):569-575
pubmed: 27799171
J Biomech. 2009 Dec 11;42(16):2678-85
pubmed: 19782986
Gait Posture. 2013 Sep;38(4):940-4
pubmed: 23706507
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Feb 08;9:9
pubmed: 22316235
Gait Posture. 2003 Oct;18(2):1-10
pubmed: 14654202
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Feb 28;18(3):
pubmed: 29495600
Gait Posture. 2014;40(1):11-9
pubmed: 24768525
Gait Posture. 2017 Oct;58:516-522
pubmed: 28961548
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Jun 21;18(7):
pubmed: 29933568
J Biomech. 2014 Nov 28;47(15):3780-5
pubmed: 25305689
Gait Posture. 2010 May;32(1):98-101
pubmed: 20434916
Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(5):382-90
pubmed: 25196466
J Biomech. 2014 Jan 3;47(1):74-80
pubmed: 24200341
J Biomech. 2004 Dec;37(12):1869-80
pubmed: 15519595
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1290-9
pubmed: 12811274
Gait Posture. 2015 Sep;42(3):289-94
pubmed: 26141906
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2016 Mar;16(1):63-74
pubmed: 26944825
J Appl Biomech. 2012 Jul;28(3):349-55
pubmed: 22087019
Gait Posture. 2016 Mar;45:110-4
pubmed: 26979891
Ann Biomed Eng. 2010 Aug;38(8):2588-93
pubmed: 20354902
J Biomech. 2009 Jul 22;42(10):1578-81
pubmed: 19442978
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 18;11(7):e0158956
pubmed: 27427965
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
Gait Posture. 2009 Aug;30(2):192-6
pubmed: 19477649
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2016;4:
pubmed: 27088063
Med Eng Phys. 2016 Mar;38(3):225-31
pubmed: 26711470
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016 Nov;63(11):2278-2285
pubmed: 26849858
Sensors (Basel). 2017 Jun 28;17(7):
pubmed: 28657587
Sensors (Basel). 2012;12(2):2255-83
pubmed: 22438763
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Jan;22(1):127-37
pubmed: 24158491
Sensors (Basel). 2015 Dec 23;16(1):
pubmed: 26703622
J Biomech. 2009 Dec 11;42(16):2747-52
pubmed: 19748624
Telemed J E Health. 2012 May;18(4):292-6
pubmed: 22400972
Gait Posture. 2014 Sep;40(4):487-92
pubmed: 25085660
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Nov 11;11:152
pubmed: 25388296
Comput Biol Med. 1990;20(5):337-40
pubmed: 2257734
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120