ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2017
Optimal Conditions for Obtaining Valid Step Count Measurements in Hospitalized Patients with Abnormal Gait.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the optimum conditions for obtaining valid step-count measurements for patients with abnormal gait.
methodsSubjects comprised 61 hospitalized patients with abnormal gait. Four different devices were tested: Active Style Pro (AS), Walking Style (WS), Lifecorder PLUS, and Steps. The same device type was attached to the waist on both the affected and the unaffected side. Patients then walked 25 m at a comfortable speed. This test was repeated four times, once for each device. The measurement error (ME) and walking parameters (gait velocity, step length, and cadence) were calculated from the test data. ME scores smaller than 3% and 10% were classified as valid: scores above these standards were classified as invalid. Walking parameter values that identified the invalid group with a specificity of 0.95 were set as the cut-off velocity (COV), the cut-off step length (COS), and the cut-off cadence. Sensitivity values >0.40 and positive predictive values >80% were then set as necessary conditions.
resultsCOV values were 0.90 m/s (AS on the unaffected side at 3% ME and AS on the affected side or the unaffected side at 10% ME), 0.92 m/s (WS on the unaffected side at 10% ME), and 0.98 m/s (WS on the affected side at 3% ME). COS values were 0.50 m (AS on the affected side at 10% ME) and 0.52 m (AS on the unaffected side at 3% ME).
conclusionThe most accurate measurements were obtained using AS attached to the unaffected side with a gait velocity of >0.90 m/s.
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.