Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28657587›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2017

Towards Mobile Gait Analysis: Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of an Inertial Measurement System for the Assessment of Spatio-Temporal Gait Parameters.

Felix Kluge, Heiko Gaßner, Julius Hannink, Cristian Pasluosta, Jochen Klucken, Björn M Eskofier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gaitmap-An Open Ecosystem for IMU-Based Human Gait Analysis and Algorithm Benchmarking.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Wearable Sensors for Respiration Monitoring: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review

14 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

6 authors.

Felix KlugeDigital Sports Group, Pattern Recognition Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91058 Erlangen, Germany. felix.kluge@fau.de.
Heiko GaßnerMolecular Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany. heiko.gassner@uk-erlangen.de.
Julius HanninkDigital Sports Group, Pattern Recognition Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91058 Erlangen, Germany. julius.hannink@fau.de.
Cristian PasluostaDigital Sports Group, Pattern Recognition Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91058 Erlangen, Germany. cristian.pasluosta@imtek.uni-freiburg.de.
Jochen KluckenMolecular Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany. jochen.klucken@uk-erlangen.de.
Björn M EskofierDigital Sports Group, Pattern Recognition Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91058 Erlangen, Germany. bjoern.eskofier@fau.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a sensor-based gait analysis system. Eleven healthy subjects and four Parkinson's disease (PD) patients were asked to complete gait tasks whilst wearing two inertial measurement units at their feet. The extracted spatio-temporal parameters of 1166 strides were compared to those extracted from a reference camera-based motion capture system concerning concurrent validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed for five healthy subjects at three different days in a two week period. The two systems were highly correlated for all gait parameters ( r > 0.93 ). The bias for stride time was 0 ± 16 ms and for stride length was 1.4 ± 6.7 cm. No systematic range dependent errors were observed and no significant changes existed between healthy subjects and PD patients. Test-retest reliability was excellent for all parameters (intraclass correlation (ICC) > 0.81) except for gait velocity (ICC > 0.55). The sensor-based system was able to accurately capture spatio-temporal gait parameters as compared to the reference camera-based system for normal and impaired gait. The system's high retest reliability renders the use in recurrent clinical measurements and in long-term applications feasible.

Indexed as

GaitFootHealthy VolunteersHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingReproducibility of Resultsaccelerometerambulatory motion trackinggyroscopehuman gaitinertial measurement unitmovement analysissensorsstride parameterswalkingwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID28657587
PMCPMC5539856

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.