ArticlePloS one2024
Improving the reliability of underwater gait analysis using wearable pressure and inertial sensors.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and Inter-Subject Variability of Gait Event Detection Methods Based on Optical and Inertial Motion Capture.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work addresses the lack of reliable wearable methods to assess walking gaits in underwater environments by evaluating the lateral hydrodynamic pressure exerted on lower limbs. Sixteen healthy adults were outfitted with waterproof wearable inertial and pressure sensors. Gait analysis was conducted on land in a motion analysis laboratory using an optoelectronic system as reference, and subsequently underwater in a rehabilitation swimming pool. Differences between the normalized land and underwater gaits were evaluated using temporal gait parameters, knee joint angles and the total water pressure on the lower limbs. The proposed method was validated against the optoelectronic system on land; gait events were identified with low bias (0.01s) using Bland-Altman plots for the stride time, and an acceptable error was observed when estimating the knee angle (10.96° RMSE, Bland-Altman bias -2.94°). The kinematic differences between the land and underwater environments were quantified, where it was observed that the temporal parameters increased by more than a factor of two underwater (p<0.001). The subdivision of swing and stance phases remained consistent between land and water trials. A higher variability of the knee angle was observed in water (CV = 60.75%) as compared to land (CV = 31.02%). The intra-subject variability of the hydrodynamic pressure on the foot ([Formula: see text] = 39.65%) was found to be substantially lower than that of the knee angle (CVz = 67.69%). The major finding of this work is that the hydrodynamic pressure on the lower limbs may offer a new and more reliable parameter for underwater motion analysis as it provided a reduced intra-subject variability as compared to conventional gait parameters applied in land-based studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.