Validity and reliability of the DANU sports system for walking and running gait assessment.

Objective. Gait assessments have traditionally been analysed in laboratory settings, but this may not reflect natural gait. Wearable technology may offer an alternative due to its versatility. The purpose of the study was to establish the validity and reliability of temporal gait outcomes calculated by the DANU sports system, against a 3D motion capture reference system.Approach. Forty-one healthy adults (26 M, 15 F, age 36.4 ± 11.8 years) completed a series of overground walking and jogging trials and 60 s treadmill walking and running trials at various speeds (8-14 km hr-1), participants returned for a second testing session to repeat the same testing.Main results. For validity, 1406 steps and 613 trials during overground and across all treadmill trials were analysed respectively. Temporal outcomes generated by the DANU sports system included ground contact time, swing time and stride time all demonstrated excellent agreement compared to the laboratory reference (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.900), aside from ground contact time during overground jogging which had good agreement (ICC = 0.778). For reliability, 666 overground and 511 treadmill trials across all speeds were examined. Test re-test agreement was excellent for all outcomes across treadmill trials (ICC > 0.900), except for swing time during treadmill walking which had good agreement (ICC = 0.886). Overground trials demonstrated moderate to good test re-test agreement (ICC = 0.672-0.750), which may be due to inherent variability of self-selected (rather than treadmill set) pacing between sessions.Significance. Overall, this study showed that temporal gait outcomes from the DANU Sports System had good to excellent validity and moderate to excellent reliability in healthy adults compared to an established laboratory reference.

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. RESULTS: A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42021235527.