ArticlePloS one2018
Assessing a novel way to measure step count while walking using a custom mobile phone application.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can self-monitoring mobile health apps reduce sedentary behavior? A randomized controlled trial.Journal of occupational health · 2020Trial
- Clinical utility and methodological implementation of smartphone-based mobility analysis: a scoping review.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Lifestyle and Psychological Factors Associated With Depression in College Students in Hokkaido, Japan During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025Article
- System for Tracking and Evaluating Performance (Step-App®): validation and clinical application of a mobile telemonitoring system in patients with knee and hip total arthroplasty. A prospective cohort study.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Adaptive learning algorithms to optimize mobile applications for behavioral health: guidelines for design decisions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Walking Speed Reliably Measures Clinically Significant Changes in Gait by Directional Deep Brain Stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Identifying characteristics of indicators of sedentary behavior using objective measurements.Journal of occupational health · 2020Article
- Soft-Material-Based Smart Insoles for a Gait Monitoring System.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- A Smartphone Application to Measure Walking Cadence before Major Abdominal Surgery in Older Adults.Digital biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWalking speed has been associated with many clinical outcomes (e.g., frailty, mortality, joint replacement need, etc.). Accurately measuring walking speed (stride length x step count/time) typically requires significant clinician/staff time or a gait lab with specialized equipment (i.e., electronic timers or motion capture). In the present study, our goal was to measure "step count" via smartphones through novel software and to compare with step tracking software that come standard with iOS and Android smartphones as a first step in walking speed measurement.
methodsA separate calibration and validation data collection was performed. Individuals in the calibration collection (n = 5) walked 20m at normal and slow speed (<1.0 m/s). Appropriate settings for the novel mobile application were chosen to measure step count. Individuals in the validation (n = 52) collection walked at 6m, 10m, and 20m at normal and slow walking speeds. We compared step difference (absolute difference) from observed step counts to native step tracking software and our novel software derived step counts. We used generalized estimated equation adjusted (participant level) negative binomial regression models of absolute step difference from observed step counts, to determine optimal settings (calibration) and subsequently to gauge performance of the shake algorithm settings and native step tracking software across different distances and speeds (validation).
resultsFor iOS/iPhone 6, when compared to observed step count, the shake service (software driven approach) significantly outperformed the embedded native step tracking software across all distances at slow speed, and for short distance (6m) at normal speed. On the Android phone, the shake service outperformed the native step tracking software at slow speed at 6 meters and 20 meters, while its performance eclipsed the native step tracking software only at 20 meters at normal speed. DISCUSSION: Our software based approach outperformed native step tracking software across various speeds and distances and carries the advantage of having adjustable measurement parameters that can be further optimized for specific medical conditions. Such software applications will provide an effective way to capture standardized data across multiple commercial smartphone devices, facilitating the future capture of walking speed and other clinically important performance parameters that will influence clinical and home care in the era of value based care.
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.