Recent technological developments have led to the production of inexpensive, non-invasive, miniature magneto-inertial sensors, ideal for obtaining sport performance measures during training or competition. This systematic review evaluates current evidence and the future potential of their use in sport performance evaluation. Articles published in English (April 2017) were searched in Web-of-Science, Scopus, Pubmed, and Sport-Discus databases. A keyword search of titles, abstracts and keywords which included studies using accelerometers, gyroscopes and/or magnetometers to analyse sport motor-tasks performed by athletes (excluding risk of injury, physical activity, and energy expenditure) resulted in 2040 papers. Papers and reference list screening led to the selection of 286 studies and 23 reviews. Information on sport, motor-tasks, participants, device characteristics, sensor position and fixing, experimental setting and performance indicators was extracted. The selected papers dealt with motor capacity assessment (51 papers), technique analysis (163), activity classification (19), and physical demands assessment (61). Focus was placed mainly on elite and sub-elite athletes (59%) performing their sport in-field during training (62%) and competition (7%). Measuring movement outdoors created opportunities in winter sports (8%), water sports (16%), team sports (25%), and other outdoor activities (27%). Indications on the reliability of sensor-based performance indicators are provided, together with critical considerations and future trends.

The aim of this study was to validate a wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU), containing a 3D accelerometer and gyroscope, for the estimation of countermovement jump height. The absolute vertical acceleration of the IMU positioned on the back of the participant at L5 level, compensated for trunk rotations, was used to obtain jump height by applying the equation of free-fall to the motion of the IMU. The methodology was tested on 28 participants performing five countermovement jumps each. A reference value for this quantity was obtained using stereophotogrammetry (35.4 cm, s = 4.9). Jump height scores obtained using the proposed methodology (35.9 cm, s = 5.5) presented no significant difference with respect to stereophotogrammetry (P = 0.61). A low bias of 0.6 cm confirmed the accuracy of the estimate, which also showed a high (r = 0.87) and significant (P < 0.0001) correlation with reference values. Furthermore, without compensating accelerations for trunk rotation, jump height was largely underestimated (P < 0.0001) (bias: -12.7 cm) and poorly associated (r = 0.31) with stereophotogrammetry. The results of this study show that the estimation of jump height using inertial sensors leads to accurate results when the measured accelerations are corrected for trunk rotations.

Gait analysis is recognized as a useful assessment tool in the field of human movement research. However, doubts remain on its real effectiveness as a clinical tool, i.e. on its capability to change the diagnostic-therapeutic practice. In particular, the conditions in which evidence of a favorable cost-benefit ratio is found and the methodology for properly conducting and interpreting the exam are not identified clearly. To provide guidelines for the use of Gait Analysis in the context of rehabilitation medicine, SIAMOC (the Italian Society of Clinical Movement Analysis) promoted a National Consensus Conference which was held in Bologna on September 14th, 2013. The resulting recommendations were the result of a three-stage process entailing i) the preparation of working documents on specific open issues, ii) the holding of the consensus meeting, and iii) the drafting of consensus statements by an external Jury. The statements were formulated based on scientific evidence or experts' opinion, when the quality/quantity of the relevant literature was deemed insufficient. The aim of this work is to disseminate the consensus statements. These are divided into 13 questions grouped in three areas of interest: 1) General requirements and management, 2) Methodological and instrumental issues, and 3) Scientific evidence and clinical appropriateness. SIAMOC hopes that this document will contribute to improve clinical practice and help promoting further research in the field.