Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31027153›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2019

Sana M Keloth, Rekha Viswanathan, Beth Jelfs, Sridhar Arjunan, Sanjay Raghav, Dinesh Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Atypical Gait Cycles in Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Sana M KelothBiosignals Lab, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. s3614093@student.rmit.edu.au.
Rekha ViswanathanBiosignals Lab, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. s3427376@student.rmit.edu.au.
Beth JelfsBiosignals Lab, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. beth.jelfs@rmit.edu.au.
Sridhar ArjunanBiosignals Lab, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. sridhararjunan@gmail.com.
Sanjay RaghavDandenong Neurology, Melbourne, VIC 3175, Australia. sanjay.raghav@rmit.edu.au.
Dinesh KumarBiosignals Lab, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. dinesh.kumar@rmit.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the difference in the gait of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), age-matched controls and young controls during three walking patterns. Experiments were conducted with 24 PD, 24 age-matched controls and 24 young controls, and four gait intervals were measured using inertial measurement units (IMU). Group differences between the mean and variance of the gait parameters (stride interval, stance interval, swing interval and double support interval) for the three groups were calculated and statistical significance was tested. The results showed that the variance in each of the four gait parameters of PD patients was significantly higher compared with the controls, irrespective of the three walking patterns. This study showed that the variance of any of the gait interval parameters obtained using IMU during any of the walking patterns could be used to differentiate between the gait of PD and control people.

Indexed as

GaitAgedAlgorithmsBiomechanical PhenomenaCase-Control StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleParkinson DiseasegaitIMUParkinson’s diseasevariance

Identifiers

PMID31027153
PMCPMC6627461

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.