@misc{HenschkeKaplickWochatzetal.2022,
  author    = {Henschke, Jakob and Kaplick, Hannes and Wochatz, Monique and Engel, Tilman},
  title     = {Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-57827},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-578278},
  pages     = {1 -- 11},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background and Aims Wearable inertial sensors may offer additional kinematic parameters of the shoulder compared to traditional instruments such as goniometers when elaborate and time-consuming data processing procedures are undertaken. However, in clinical practice simple-real time motion analysis is required to improve clinical reasoning. Therefore, the aim was to assess the criterion validity between a portable "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system (IMU) and optical motion (Mocap) for measuring kinematic parameters during active shoulder movements. Methods 24 healthy participants (9 female, 15 male, age 29 +/- 4 years, height 177 +/- 11 cm, weight 73 +/- 14 kg) were included. Range of motion (ROM), total range of motion (TROM), peak and mean angular velocity of both systems were assessed during simple (abduction/adduction, horizontal flexion/horizontal extension, vertical flexion/extension, and external/internal rotation) and complex shoulder movements. Criterion validity was determined using intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC), root mean square error (RMSE) and Bland and Altmann analysis (bias; upper and lower limits of agreement). Results ROM and TROM analysis revealed inconsistent validity during simple (ICC: 0.040-0.733, RMSE: 9.7 degrees-20.3 degrees, bias: 1.2 degrees-50.7 degrees) and insufficient agreement during complex shoulder movements (ICC: 0.104-0.453, RMSE: 10.1 degrees-23.3 degrees, bias: 1.0 degrees-55.9 degrees). Peak angular velocity (ICC: 0.202-0.865, RMSE: 14.6 degrees/s-26.7 degrees/s, bias: 10.2 degrees/s-29.9 degrees/s) and mean angular velocity (ICC: 0.019-0.786, RMSE:6.1 degrees/s-34.2 degrees/s, bias: 1.6 degrees/s-27.8 degrees/s) were inconsistent. Conclusions The "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system showed overall insufficient agreement with the gold standard. Further development of commercial IMU-software-solutions may increase measurement accuracy and permit their integration into everyday clinical practice.},
  language  = {en}
}