The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis

Antonio Cuesta-Vargas; Alejandro Galán-Mercant; Jonathan M. Williams

doi:10.1179/1743288x11y.0000000006

Home SearchPaper Details

The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis

Antonio Cuesta-Vargas, Alejandro Galán-Mercant, Jonathan M. Williams

Taylor & Francis (2010) • Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages 462-473

SynthesisSystematicReviewPDF AvailableGrade Eligible⚠️ Moderate Risk Flags

Overall Assessment

Limited Methodological Quality

Assessment created by PaperScorers Medical AI v0.1.0 on Dec 18, 2025

D

43/100

Key Takeaways

•Systematic review of 14 validation studies (2000–2010) of inertial sensors vs lab gold standards.
•Good agreement reported for many tasks; accuracy is site/task specific.
•Methods: multi-database search, dual-review; CASPe appraisal; PRISMA-like flow.
•No preregistration, no meta-analysis, no publication bias assessment.
•Metrics heterogeneous (CMC, RMS error); trunk shows higher errors than limbs.

Conclusion

Inertial sensors are generally accurate and reliable for human motion analysis, but performance varies by body site and task; more rigorous, standardised methods are needed.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Quality Dimensions

Bias & Integrity

COI handling, outcome switching, selective reporting

D45

Methods Rigour

Protocol clarity, sampling, controls

C-55

External Validity

Generalisability, setting, population

D+50

Transparency & Reproducibility

Data/code/materials availability, preregistration

F10

Significance & Novelty

Contribution vs prior art; context if known

B-70

Statistical Validity

Models, assumptions, multiplicity, CI priority

D-30

Integrity & Transparency

Integrity checks

P-hacking risk?

?

None suspected

Signs of selective hypothesis testing or analysis choices that could inflate false positive rates.

Outcome switching?

?

Review recommended

Evidence that primary outcomes were changed during or after the study, potentially distorting results.

Conflict of interest?

?

Review recommended

Authors have financial or other relationships that could bias research findings.

Data integrity issues?

?

None suspected

Concerns about the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of the reported data.

Open science signals

Research data

?

Not shared

Raw data used in the analyses is publicly available or accessible upon request.

Analysis code

?

Not shared

Code or scripts used to analyze the data are shared for reproducibility.

Study materials

?

Not shared

Protocols, questionnaires, and other materials are publicly available.

Premise

Primary Research Question

How valid and reliable are inertial sensors compared with accepted gold standards for human motion analysis?

Hypothesis is Falsifiable

✓Yes

Validity/reliability can be compared against gold standards with reported errors/correlations.

PICO Framework

Population✓Yes

Human motion studies across body regions.

Intervention✓Yes

Inertial sensors (accelerometers, gyros, magnetometers).

Comparison✓Yes

Gold standards incl. optoelectronic/electromagnetic/electrogoniometry.

Outcome✓Yes

Accuracy (error) and reliability (correlations/CMC).

Literature Positioning

Literature Review Balanced

Well covered

Summarises strengths/limitations; discusses heterogeneity and threats to validity.

Evidence: p.471–472 Discussion

Research Gap Clearly Stated

Well covered

Aims to systematically appraise inertial sensors vs gold standards.

Evidence: p.462 Objective

Stated Contribution Clear

Well covered

Concludes inertial sensors are accurate/reliable but site/task specific.

Evidence: p.472–473 Conclusions

Study Provenance

Peer reviewed venueFunding not reportedCOI not reportedAffiliations listed

Authors & Affiliations

University of Malaga (Spain); Roehampton University (UK).

Funding Statement

Not reported

Conflicts of Interest

Not reported

Peer Review

✓Published in Physical Therapy Reviews (peer-reviewed journal).

Evidence: front matter; journal info p.462

Methodological Assessment

Systematic Review / Meta-AnalysisPRISMASR/MA

13 applicable checklist items.

Yes 6 · No 5 · Unclear 2

Protocol & Search

✗

Protocol Registered (PROSPERO/OSF)

No preregistration or protocol reported.

Evidence: p.463 Methods

✓

Search Strategy Reproducible

Databases, terms, limits (English, 2000–2010) reported; flow chart given.

Evidence: p.463 Methods; Fig.1

✓

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Clear

Explicit inclusion/exclusion using PICO; validation vs gold standards.

Evidence: p.463 Methods

✓

PRISMA Flow Diagram Provided

Flow diagram from 242 to 14 studies.

Evidence: Fig.1 p.464

✓

Duplicate Screening & Extraction

Two independent reviewers for selection, appraisal, extraction.

Evidence: p.463 Methods

Quality Assessment

✓

Risk of Bias Assessed

Used CASPe tool for critical appraisal.

Evidence: p.463 Methods; p.465 Table 1

✓

RoB Tool Used and Applied

CASPe tool applied across included studies.

Evidence: Table 1 p.465

✗

GRADE Certainty Assessed

No GRADE or certainty framework used.

Evidence: paper-wide

Synthesis & Analysis

✗

Heterogeneity Assessed

No heterogeneity assessment; narrative synthesis only.

Evidence: p.471 Discussion

✗

Publication Bias Assessed

No assessment of publication bias reported.

Evidence: paper-wide

?

Duplicate Data/Overlap Handled

No explicit handling of overlapping datasets across studies.

Evidence: paper-wide

?

Effect Metric Harmonised Appropriately

Metrics varied (CMC, RMS error), limited harmonisation.

Evidence: p.466–470 Table 2

✗

Exposure of Interest Consistent

Sensors, tasks, and regions varied markedly across studies.

Evidence: p.466–470 Table 2

Modules without applicable checklist items (9)

These designs were fully marked as not applicable but remain available for reference.

Abstract

This review concludes that inertial sensors can offer an accurate and reliable method to study human motion, but the degree of accuracy and reliability is site and task specific.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Study Overview

Study Design

Systematic Review

Primary classification used to evaluate this research.

Population

Studies validating inertial sensors for human motion vs lab gold standards across body regions.

Brief summary of who or what was studied.

Sample Size

14

Number of participants included in the study analyses.

Pre-registration

Not registered

Indicates whether the protocol or trial was registered before data collection.

Primary Outcome

Primary outcome was pre-specified in the protocol or registry.

Reviewer Notes

Systematic review with narrative synthesis of 14 validation studies; no meta-analysis performed.

Publication Details

DOI

10.1179/1743288x11y.0000000006

Published

December 1, 2010

Citations

352 citations

FWCI

4.45

External Resources

DOI Link OpenAlex

Disclaimer: This assessment is generated by AI and should not be the sole basis for clinical or research decisions. Always review the original paper and consult with domain experts.

Suggested Papers

D

Attention‑Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder in Children: Overcoming Diagnostic Challenges and Exploring Modern Treatment Approaches

Michalina Raczkowska et al.•2025

D+

Redox regulation: mechanisms, biology and therapeutic targets in diseases

Bowen Li et al.•2025

No Report

Perceived noise in surgical wards and an intensive care area: an objective analysis.

Suzanne Bentley et al.•1977

Suggested Papers

From Our Blog

Randomized Controlled Trials: The Gold Standard

Why is the RCT the king of evidence? Because it is the only way to kill the confounders.

The Hierarchy of Evidence: Not All Papers Are Equal

A case study is not the same as a clinical trial. Learn the pyramid of evidence to know which studies to trust.

Odds Ratio vs. Risk Ratio: Don't Get Tricked

Odds and probability are not the same thing. Confusing them makes rare events look common.