PTOTSystematic ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

A systematic review of the applications of markerless motion capture (MMC) technology for clinical measurement in rehabilitation.

Winnie W T Lam, Yuk Ming Tang, Kenneth N K Fong

PMID 37131238

WHAT IT FOUND

Markerless video can capture body movement in rehab patients, but the review found the evidence too small and varied to support routine clinical measurement.

Key findings

01The review included 65 studies applying markerless motion capture to clinical measurement; more than 40% were in Parkinson's disease, with cerebral palsy and stroke next.

02Most studies used markerless video plus classification algorithms to identify symptoms or compare movement with healthy controls, but the authors say sample sizes were too small.

03Kinect was the most common system, but it has been out of production since 2017, and video analysis remains complicated and time-consuming.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The included studies were small, so the review cannot show that markerless motion capture is accurate enough for routine clinical decisions. The systems, measurements and patient groups varied widely, making it hard to compare results across studies. Video analysis is still complicated and time-consuming, so it is not yet user-friendly for therapists. The review is about measurement technology, not about whether using it improves patient outcomes. The most common system, Kinect, has been out of production, so some included studies used tools that may not be available now.

Declared interests

Funding came from the Research Grants Council and University Grants Committee.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that markerless motion capture is ready for clinical measurement. The review describes potential, but the studies were small, varied, and not validated enough to replace standard assessment.

Read it on PubMed →