Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29102267›Full record

SynthesisJournal of biomechanics2017

Wearable technology for spine movement assessment: A systematic review.

Enrica Papi, Woon Senn Koh, Alison H McGregor

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of biomechanics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Enrica PapiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: e.papi@imperial.ac.uk.
Woon Senn KohDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Alison H McGregorDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Arthritis Research UKMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous monitoring of spine movement function could enhance our understanding of low back pain development. Wearable technologies have gained popularity as promising alternative to laboratory systems in allowing ambulatory movement analysis. This paper aims to review the state of art of current use of wearable technology to assess spine kinematics and kinetics. Four electronic databases and reference lists of relevant articles were searched to find studies employing wearable technologies to assess the spine in adults performing dynamic movements. Two reviewers independently identified relevant papers. Customised data extraction and quality appraisal form were developed to extrapolate key details and identify risk of biases of each study. Twenty-two articles were retrieved that met the inclusion criteria: 12 were deemed of medium quality (score 33.4-66.7%), and 10 of high quality (score >66.8%). The majority of articles (19/22) reported validation type studies. Only 6 reported data collection in real-life environments. Multiple sensors type were used: electrogoniometers (3/22), strain gauges based sensors (3/22), textile piezoresistive sensor (1/22) and accelerometers often used with gyroscopes and magnetometers (15/22). Two sensors units were mainly used and placing was commonly reported on the spine lumbar and sacral regions. The sensors were often wired to data transmitter/logger resulting in cumbersome systems. Outcomes were mostly reported relative to the lumbar segment and in the sagittal plane, including angles, range of motion, angular velocity, joint moments and forces. This review demonstrates the applicability of wearable technology to assess the spine, although this technique is still at an early stage of development.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaHumansLow Back PainMovementPostureRange of Motion, ArticularSpineWearable Electronic DevicesKinematicsKineticsMotion analysisSpineWearable sensor

Identifiers

PMID29102267
PMCPMC5700811

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.