Trial reportClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2017
Validation of simplified centre of mass models during gait in individuals with chronic stroke.
Trial report in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Estimation of 3D Body Center of Mass Acceleration and Instantaneous Velocity from a Wearable Inertial Sensor Network in Transfemoral Amputee Gait: A Case Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe feasibility of using a multiple segment (full-body) kinematic model in clinical gait assessment is difficult when considering obstacles such as time and cost constraints. While simplified gait models have been explored in healthy individuals, no such work to date has been conducted in a stroke population. The aim of this study was to quantify the errors of simplified kinematic models for chronic stroke gait assessment.
methodsSixteen individuals with chronic stroke (>6months), outfitted with full body kinematic markers, performed a series of gait trials. Three centre of mass models were computed: (i) 13-segment whole-body model, (ii) 3 segment head-trunk-pelvis model, and (iii) 1 segment pelvis model. Root mean squared error differences were compared between models, along with correlations to measures of stroke severity.
findingsError differences revealed that, while both models were similar in the mediolateral direction, the head-trunk-pelvis model had less error in the anteroposterior direction and the pelvis model had less error in the vertical direction. There was some evidence that the head-trunk-pelvis model error is influenced in the mediolateral direction for individuals with more severe strokes, as a few significant correlations were observed between the head-trunk-pelvis model and measures of stroke severity.
interpretationThese findings demonstrate the utility and robustness of the pelvis model for clinical gait assessment in individuals with chronic stroke. Low error in the mediolateral and vertical directions is especially important when considering potential stability analyses during gait for this population, as lateral stability has been previously linked to fall risk.
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.