Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28842792›Full record

Trial reportChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2017

Measuring upper limb function in children with hemiparesis with 3D inertial sensors.

Christopher J Newman, Roselyn Bruchez, Sylvie Roches, Marine Jequier Gygax, Cyntia Duc, Farzin Dadashi, Fabien Massé, Kamiar Aminian

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Christopher J NewmanPaediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. Christopher.Newman@chuv.ch.
Roselyn BruchezPaediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sylvie RochesPaediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Marine Jequier GygaxPaediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cyntia DucLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Farzin DadashiLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Fabien MasséLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Kamiar AminianLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUpper limb assessments in children with hemiparesis rely on clinical measurements, which despite standardization are prone to error. Recently, 3D movement analysis using optoelectronic setups has been used to measure upper limb movement, but generalization is hindered by time and cost. Body worn inertial sensors may provide a simple, cost-effective alternative.

methodsWe instrumented a subset of 30 participants in a mirror therapy clinical trial at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up clinical assessments, with wireless inertial sensors positioned on the arms and trunk to monitor motion during reaching tasks.

resultsInertial sensor measurements distinguished paretic and non-paretic limbs with significant differences (P < 0.01) in movement duration, power, range of angular velocity, elevation, and smoothness (normalized jerk index and spectral arc length). Inertial sensor measurements correlated with functional clinical tests (Melbourne Assessment 2); movement duration and complexity (Higuchi fractal dimension) showed moderate to strong negative correlations with clinical measures of amplitude, accuracy, and fluency.

conclusionInertial sensor measurements reliably identify paresis and correlate with clinical measurements; they can therefore provide a complementary dimension of assessment in clinical practice and during clinical trials aimed at improving upper limb function.

Indexed as

AdolescentBiomechanical PhenomenaChildFemaleHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicMovementParesisUpper ExtremityChildHemiparesisInertial sensorUpper limb

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.