Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units for jump height estimations: a systematic review

Abstract

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been extensively used for measuring human motion. One particular outcome of interest in sports is vertical jump height, which is assessed in specific performance tests or actions occurring in training or match scenarios. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined the validity of wearable wireless IMUs for measuring jump height and (2) identify and summarize studies that have examined the reliability of wearable wireless IMUs for measuring jump height. A systematic review of the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. From the 596 studies initially identified, 30 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analysed. Among the 16 different IMU models, 15 were considered valid, with only one device not validated. Of the 7 IMUs that were tested for reliability, all were considered reliable for measuring jump height. In general, however, despite these findings, IMUs are not considered accurate enough to detect small changes in performance. Also, generalizations were not possible for athletic populations given the lack of studies with such samples. in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found (item 1). State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses (item 2). Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (item 3). For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group (item 4). Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why (item 5). Give characteristics of study participants (item 6). Summarize key results with reference to study objectives (item 7). Discuss limitations of the study, considering sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias (item 8). Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence (item 9). Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based (item 10).