Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31349868›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2019

Gait analysis with the Kinect v2: normative study with healthy individuals and comprehensive study of its sensitivity, validity, and reliability in individuals with stroke.

Jorge Latorre, Carolina Colomer, Mariano Alcañiz, Roberto Llorens

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Lower limb joint contact forces and ground reaction forces analysis based on Azure Kinect motion capture].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jorge LatorreNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Carolina ColomerNEURORHB, Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación de Hospitales Vithas, Río Tajo 1, 46011, Valencia, Spain.
Mariano AlcañizNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Roberto LlorensNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain. rllorens@i3b.upv.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGait is usually assessed by clinical tests, which may have poor accuracy and be biased, or instrumented systems, which potentially solve these limitations at the cost of being time-consuming and expensive. The different versions of the Microsoft Kinect have enabled human motion tracking without using wearable sensors at a low-cost and with acceptable reliability. This study aims: First, to determine the sensitivity of an open-access Kinect v2-based gait analysis system to motor disability and aging; Second, to determine its concurrent validity with standardized clinical tests in individuals with stroke; Third, to quantify its inter and intra-rater reliability, standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change; And, finally, to investigate its ability to identify fall risk after stroke.

methodsThe most widely used spatiotemporal and kinematic gait parameters of 82 individuals post-stroke and 355 healthy subjects were estimated with the Kinect v2-based system. In addition, participants with stroke were assessed with the Dynamic Gait Index, the 1-min Walking Test, and the 10-m Walking Test.

resultsThe system successfully characterized the performance of both groups. Significant concurrent validity with correlations of variable strength was detected between all clinical tests and gait measures. Excellent inter and intra-rater reliability was evidenced for almost all measures. Minimal detectable change was variable, with poorer results for kinematic parameters. Almost all gait parameters proved to identify fall risk.

conclusionsResults suggest that although its limited sensitivity to kinematic parameters, the Kinect v2-based gait analysis could be used as a low-cost alternative to laboratory-grade systems to complement gait assessment in clinical settings.

Indexed as

SoftwareAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGait AnalysisGait Disorders, NeurologicHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsStrokeBiomedical technology assessmentFall riskGaitKinect v2Reliability and validityStroke

Identifiers

PMID31349868
PMCPMC6660692

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.