Trial reportPloS one2019
Gait-initiation onset estimation during sit-to-walk: Recommended methods suitable for healthy individuals and ambulatory community-dwelling stroke survivors.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Automatically Identifying the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values Twelve Lifting Zones over Three Simplified Zones Using Computer Algorithm.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigating the Relationships Between Three Important Functional Tasks Early After Stroke: Movement Characteristics of Sit-To-Stand, Sit-To-Walk, and Walking.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGait-initiation onset (GI-onset) during sit-to-walk (STW) is commonly defined by mediolateral ground-reaction-force (xGRF) rising and crossing a threshold pre-determined from sit-to-stand peak xGRF. However, after stroke this method [xGRFthresh] lacks validity due to impaired STW performance. Instead, methodologies based upon instance of swing-limb maximum-vertical-GRF [vGRFmaxSWING], maximum-xGRF [xGRFmax], and swing-limb heel-off [firstHEELoff] can be applied, although their validity is unclear. Therefore, we determined these methodologies' validity by revealing the shortest transition-time (seat-off-GI-onset), their utility in routinely estimating GI-onset, and whether they exhibited satisfactory intra-subject reliability.
methodsTwenty community-dwelling stroke (60 (SD 14) years), and twenty-one age-matched healthy volunteers (63 (13) years) performed 5 standardised STW trials with 2 force-plates and optical motion-tracking. Transition-time differences across-methods were assessed using Friedman tests with post-hoc pairwise-comparisons. Within-method single-measure intra-subject reliability was determined using ICC3,1 and standard errors of measurement (SEMs).
resultsIn the healthy group, median xGRFthresh transition-time was significantly shorter than xGRFmax (0.183s). In both the healthy and stroke groups, xGRFthresh transition-times (0.027s, 0.695s respectively) and vGRFmaxSWING (0.080s, 0.522s) were significantly shorter than firstHEELoff (0.293s, 1.085s) (p<0.001 in all cases). GI-onset failed to be estimated in 48% of stroke trials using xGRFthresh. Intra-subject variability was relatively high but was comparable across all estimation methods.
conclusionThe firstHEELoff method yielded significantly longer transition-times. The xGRFthresh method failed to routinely produce an estimation of GI-onset estimation. Thus, with all methods exhibiting low, yet comparable intra-subject repeatability, averaged xGRFmax or vGRFmaxSWING repeated-measures are recommended to estimate GI-onset for both healthy and community-dwelling stroke individuals.
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.