Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28928711›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017

Validation of a Step Detection Algorithm during Straight Walking and Turning in Patients with Parkinson's Disease and Older Adults Using an Inertial Measurement Unit at the Lower Back.

Minh H Pham, Morad Elshehabi, Linda Haertner, Silvia Del Din, Karin Srulijes, Tanja Heger, Matthis Synofzik, Markus A Hobert, Gert S Faber, Clint Hansen and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

61 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. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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

19 authors.

Minh H PhamDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Morad ElshehabiDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Linda HaertnerCenter for Neurology, Department of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Silvia Del DinInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Karin SrulijesDepartment of Clinical Gerontology, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Tanja HegerCenter for Neurology, Department of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Matthis SynofzikCenter for Neurology, Department of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Markus A HobertDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Gert S FaberDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Clint HansenDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Dina SalkovicCenter for Neurology, Department of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Joaquim J FerreiraClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal.
Daniela BergDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Álvaro Sanchez-FerroHM CINAC, Hospital Universitario HM Puerta del Sur, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Jaap H van DieënDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Clemens BeckerDepartment of Clinical Gerontology, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Lynn RochesterInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Gerhard SchmidtDigital Signal Processing and System Theory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInertial measurement units (IMUs) positioned on various body locations allow detailed gait analysis even under unconstrained conditions. From a medical perspective, the assessment of vulnerable populations is of particular relevance, especially in the daily-life environment. Gait analysis algorithms need thorough validation, as many chronic diseases show specific and even unique gait patterns. The aim of this study was therefore to validate an acceleration-based step detection algorithm for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and older adults in both a lab-based and home-like environment.

methodsIn this prospective observational study, data were captured from a single 6-degrees of freedom IMU (APDM) (3DOF accelerometer and 3DOF gyroscope) worn on the lower back. Detection of heel strike (HS) and toe off (TO) on a treadmill was validated against an optoelectronic system (Vicon) (11 PD patients and 12 older adults). A second independent validation study in the home-like environment was performed against video observation (20 PD patients and 12 older adults) and included step counting during turning and non-turning, defined with a previously published algorithm.

resultsA continuous wavelet transform (cwt)-based algorithm was developed for step detection with very high agreement with the optoelectronic system. HS detection in PD patients/older adults, respectively, reached 99/99% accuracy. Similar results were obtained for TO (99/100%). In HS detection, Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of 0.002 s [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.10] between the algorithm and the optoelectronic system. The Bland-Altman plot for TO detection showed mean differences of 0.00 s (95% CI -0.12 to 0.12). In the home-like assessment, the algorithm for detection of occurrence of steps during turning reached 90% (PD patients)/90% (older adults) sensitivity, 83/88% specificity, and 88/89% accuracy. The detection of steps during non-turning phases reached 91/91% sensitivity, 90/90% specificity, and 91/91% accuracy.

conclusionThis cwt-based algorithm for step detection measured at the lower back is in high agreement with the optoelectronic system in both PD patients and older adults. This approach and algorithm thus could provide a valuable tool for future research on home-based gait analysis in these vulnerable cohorts.

Indexed as

accelerometergait analysishome-like activitiesolder adultsParkinson’s diseaseturning

Identifiers

PMID28928711
PMCPMC5591331

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.