ArticleGait & posture2021
Between-site equivalence of turning speed assessments using inertial measurement units.
Article in Gait & posture, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06381674 (Wearable Technology to Characterize and Treat mTBI Subtypes), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Wearable Technology to Characterize and Treat mTBI Subtypes: Biofeedback-Based Precision Rehabilitation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective Turning Measures Improve Diagnostic Accuracy and Relate to Simulated Real-World Mobility/Combat Readiness in Chronic Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Gait during community ambulation and laboratory-based walking in people with mild traumatic brain injury.Gait & posture · 2025Article
- Relation Between Cognitive Assessment and Clinical Physical Performance Measures After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTurning is a component of gait that requires planning for movement of multiple body segments and the sophisticated integration of sensory information from the vestibular, visual, and somatosensory systems. These aspects of turning have led to growing interest to quantify turning in clinical populations to characterize deficits or identify disease progression. However, turning may be affected by environmental differences, and the degree to which turning assessments are comparable across research or clinical sites has not yet been evaluated. RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which peak turning speeds are equivalent between two sites for a variety of mobility tasks.
methodsData were collected at two different sites using separate healthy young adult participants (n = 47 participants total), but recruited using identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants at each site completed three turning tasks: a one-minute walk (1 MW) along a six-meter walkway, a modified Illinois Agility Test (mIAT), and a custom clinical turning course (CCTC). Peak yaw turning speeds were extracted from wearable inertial sensors on the head, trunk, and pelvis. Between-site differences and two one-sided tests (TOST) were used to determine equivalence between sites, based on a minimum effect size reported between individuals with mild traumatic brain injury and healthy control subjects.
resultsNo outcomes were different between sites, and equivalence was determined for 6/21 of the outcomes. These findings suggest that some turning tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies. The equivalence results are also dependent on the minimum effect size of interest; nearly all outcomes were equivalent across sites when larger minimum effect sizes of interest were used. SIGNIFICANCE: Together, these results suggest some tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies and literature-based comparisons.
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.