Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28178288›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Monitoring gait in multiple sclerosis with novel wearable motion sensors.

Yaejin Moon, Ryan S McGinnis, Kirsten Seagers, Robert W Motl, Nirav Sheth, John A Wright, Roozbeh Ghaffari, Jacob J Sosnoff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yaejin MoonDepartment of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1187-6847
Ryan S McGinnisDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Kirsten SeagersMC10 Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Robert W MotlDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Nirav ShethMC10 Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America.
John A WrightMC10 Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Roozbeh GhaffariMC10 Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jacob J SosnoffDepartment of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GaitAdultAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPsychomotor PerformanceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28178288
PMCPMC5298289
OpenAlexW2586302922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.