Back

Shared Strides: Community-based, high-throughput biomechanics data collection in knee osteoarthritis

Qualter, J. M.; McCloskey, R. C.; Stofer, K. A.; Qiu, P.; Tian, Z.; Vincent, H. K.; Costello, K. E.

2026-03-25 orthopedics
10.64898/2026.03.23.26349064 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: This analysis assessed the acceptability and recruitment implications of a high-throughput, community-based biomechanics protocol among individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Design: During the Shared Strides Study, high-throughput markerless biomechanics assessment was conducted at community sites to help facilitate research engagement in the OA population. In this cross-sectional study, biomechanics data during a set of activities of daily living (ADLs) and questionnaire data were collected. Adults aged 40 years or older with knee OA participated at one of four sites across Gainesville, FL--two on-campus and two community-based. Eligible individuals were either screened over the phone and scheduled for a specific date and time or screened on site for potential same-day participation. Participant acceptability of the community-based biomechanics data collection approach was assessed using a 15-item custom questionnaire. Recruitment characteristics and participant preferences were compared across sites. Results: The high-throughput community-based data collection approach was well received. Compared with on-campus sites, community-based sites had higher engagement from walk-in participants and new research participants (40% of the sample). Familiarity with, and distance to, a data collection site were important factors in research engagement in this population. No differences in demographic characteristics existed between sites (p > 0.05), but recruitment resulted in a large sample size (n = 85) likely representative of the communities surrounding the selected sites. Conclusions: Integrating markerless motion capture with a community-based research approach may enhance the participant experience and facilitate larger, more heterogeneous sample sizes, ultimately reducing bias and homogeneity in current OA biomechanics research.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
29.9%
2
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
3
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
7
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
8
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
9
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
10
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
Arthritis & Rheumatology
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
16
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
17
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
20
Bone
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
RMD Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
25
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
26
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%