Evidence Hub

Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units used to measure motion of the lumbar spine: A systematic review of individuals with and without low back pain

Frederick A. McClintock, Andrew J. Callaway, Carol J. Clark, Jonathan M. Williams

Medical Engineering and Physics, 2024

305 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability, resulting in aberrant movement. This movement is difficult to measure accurately in clinical practice and gold standard methods, such as optoelectronic systems involve the use of expensive laboratory equipment. Inertial measurement units (IMU) offer an alternative method of quantifying movement that is accessible in most environments. However, there is no consensus around the validity and reliability of IMUs for quantifying lumbar spine movements compared with gold standard measures. The aim of this systematic review was to establish concurrent validity and repeated measures reliability of using IMUs for the measurement of lumbar spine movements in individuals with and without LBP. A systematic search of electronic databases, incorporating PRISMA guidelines was completed, limited to the English language. 503 studies were identified where 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 305 individuals were included, and 109 of these individuals had LBP. Weighted synthesis of the results demonstrated root mean squared differences of 0.84 for lumbar spine movements. IMUs offer clinicians and researchers valid and reliable measurement of motion in the lumbar spine, comparable to laboratory methods, such as optoelectronic motion capture for individuals with and without LBP.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 305 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free