ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2021
Accelerometry as an objective measure of upper-extremity activity.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments targeting shoulder pathologies use subjective outcome measures such as self-administered questionnaires. To date, there are no validated tools that objectively measure shoulder-specific functional activity. The purpose of this study was to validate wearable accelerometers as an objective proxy for shoulder activity. Ten healthy volunteers wore accelerometers placed at both wrists, the dominant upper arm and the chest while performing standardised shoulder and non-shoulder activities. Recorded tridimensional acceleration was computed into activity counts for epochs of 10 s. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were built to determine the optimal configuration to classify shoulder-type activities. For single accelerometer placement, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was optimal for the 10-s epoch (AUC = 0.779) using the wrist placement, with a sensitivity of 94.1% and specificity of 67.5%. The combined upper arm and chest placement had an AUC of 0.985 (94.8% sensitivity, 94.8% specificity). Dual-accelerometer placement (upper arm and chest) is the optimal configuration to classify shoulder activity. However, a sole wrist-based accelerometer can be used as an objective proxy for shoulder activity in long-term unsupervised monitoring with excellent sensitivity and acceptable specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33411268What 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.