ArticlePloS one2017
Monitoring gait in multiple sclerosis with novel wearable motion sensors.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural correlates of dual-task walking in people with central neurological disorders: a systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Development Technologies for the Monitoring of Six-Minute Walk Test: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- What the Tech? The Management of Neurological Dysfunction Through the Use of Digital Technology.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Pooled it
- Instrumented Timed Up and Go Test as a Tool to Early Detection of Gait and Functional Mobility Impairments in Multiple Sclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Accurate quantification of steps from multiple smartphone positions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- [Orthopaedics of the future : AI meets motion analysis: opportunities and risks].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Reliability of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Endurance Runners during Treadmill Running.Journal of human kinetics · 2025Article
- Identifying impairments and compensatory strategies for temporal gait asymmetry in post-stroke persons.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating hip impact velocity and acceleration from video-captured falls using a pose estimation algorithm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Concurrent Validity and Relative Reliability of the RunScribe™ System for the Assessment of Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters During Walking.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Walk Longer! Using Wearable Inertial Sensors to Uncover Which Gait Aspects Should Be Treated to Increase Walking Endurance in People with Multiple Sclerosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Optimizing Detection and Prediction of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis With Ambulatory Cognitive Tests: Protocol for the Longitudinal Observational CogDetect-MS Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Flexible sensor-based biomechanical evaluation of low-back exoskeleton use in lifting.Ergonomics · 2024Article
- Leveraging Emerging Technologies to Expand Accessibility and Improve Precision in Rehabilitation and Exercise for People with Disabilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Reliability of Xsens inertial measurement unit in measuring trunk accelerations: a sex-based differences study during incremental treadmill running.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Wearable sensors for prediction of intraamniotic infection in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes: a prospective proof of principle study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Automatic Assessment of the 2-Minute Walk Distance for Remote Monitoring of People with Multiple Sclerosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Inertial sensors for gait monitoring and design of adaptive controllers for exoskeletons after stroke: a feasibility study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Transparent Quality Optimization for Machine Learning-Based Regression in Neurology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobility impairment is common in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and there is a need to assess mobility in remote settings. Here, we apply a novel wireless, skin-mounted, and conformal inertial sensor (BioStampRC, MC10 Inc.) to examine gait characteristics of PwMS under controlled conditions. We determine the accuracy and precision of BioStampRC in measuring gait kinematics by comparing to contemporary research-grade measurement devices.
methodsA total of 45 PwMS, who presented with diverse walking impairment (Mild MS = 15, Moderate MS = 15, Severe MS = 15), and 15 healthy control subjects participated in the study. Participants completed a series of clinical walking tests. During the tests participants were instrumented with BioStampRC and MTx (Xsens, Inc.) sensors on their shanks, as well as an activity monitor GT3X (Actigraph, Inc.) on their non-dominant hip. Shank angular velocity was simultaneously measured with the inertial sensors. Step number and temporal gait parameters were calculated from the data recorded by each sensor. Visual inspection and the MTx served as the reference standards for computing the step number and temporal parameters, respectively. Accuracy (error) and precision (variance of error) was assessed based on absolute and relative metrics. Temporal parameters were compared across groups using ANOVA.
resultsMean accuracy±precision for the BioStampRC was 2±2 steps error for step number, 6±9ms error for stride time and 6±7ms error for step time (0.6-2.6% relative error). Swing time had the least accuracy±precision (25±19ms error, 5±4% relative error) among the parameters. GT3X had the least accuracy±precision (8±14% relative error) in step number estimate among the devices. Both MTx and BioStampRC detected significantly distinct gait characteristics between PwMS with different disability levels (p<0.01).
conclusionBioStampRC sensors accurately and precisely measure gait parameters in PwMS across diverse walking impairment levels and detected differences in gait characteristics by disability level in PwMS. This technology has the potential to provide granular monitoring of gait both inside and outside the clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.