Fig. 2

Subgroup analysis describing the validity of stance time measured using IMU (Intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). A based on running speed, B based on location and C based on running surface. Squares represent Fisher’s Z; bars indicate 95% confidence intervals and diamonds as pooled data. Ammann et al. 2016a (combined speeds), 2016b (maximal sprinting speed), 2016c (intense training speed), 2016d (normal training speed) [32]; Deflandre et al. 2018a (8 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2018b (16 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2018c (8 km/h, IMUs vs Optogait), 2018d (16 km/h, IMUs vs Optogait) [37]; García-Pinillos et al.,2019a (IMUs vs optical motion capture system, IMUs: Stryd™), 2019b (IMUs vs optical motion capture system, IMUs: RunScribe™) [42]; Gindre et al., 2016a (12 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016b (15 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016c (18 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016d (21 km/h, IMUs vs optical motion capture system), 2016e (12 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016f (15 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016 g (18 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump), 2016 h (21 km/h, IMUs vs Optojump) [43]; Koldenhoven and Hertel, 2018a (left limb), 2018b (right limb) [45]. SE standard error, IV inverse variance, CI confidence interval