ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Reliability and Accuracy of Standard Reference Procedures for Measurements of Trunk and Arm Postures in Ergonomics.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardizing upper arm movement definitions across observational and sensor-based methods: A Delphi consensus study among European ergonomics experts.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
- Trunk and upper arm postures and movements among older workers in physically demanding occupations.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Biomechanics and Motion Analysis: From Human Performance to Clinical Practice.Bioengineering (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.
Funding
Abstract
Adequate reference procedures for obtaining the reference zero-angle position are important for precise and accurate posture measurements, but few studies have systematically investigated these. A limited number of previous studies suggest differences in accuracy between procedures, with some causing an underestimation of the true arm elevation angle when sensors are taped to the skin. The reliability of commonly used reference procedures for the measurement of the trunk posture is also not well explored, and alternative procedures may improve precision. Based on this identified gap, this study evaluated the test-retest reliability of the N-position (I-pose), i.e., the standard procedure for recording trunk postures, and compared it with two new alternative procedures. Additionally, the accuracy of the N-position for measuring arm elevation angles was compared with one alternative procedure. A total of 40 participants (22 women and 18 men) aged 26-70 years performed the reference procedures in a laboratory setting. Postures were recorded using a smart workwear system equipped with two inertial measurement units (IMUs) embedded in pockets within the workwear. For the trunk posture, the N-position showed a slight lack of test-retest reliability, while one of the alternative procedures demonstrated better test-retest reliability. For the arm posture, the N-position, which does not include lateral trunk inclination, resulted in a substantial underestimation of the arm elevation angle of approximately 15°, which is a novel finding. In contrast, the posture involving trunk inclination closely matched the targeted reference, with a difference of less than 2°. This study underscores the importance of selecting appropriate reference procedures to ensure precise and accurate posture measurements.
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.