ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2023
Validation of inertial measurement units for the assessment of trunk control in subjects with spinal cord injury.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Functional Independence in Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for a Predictive Rule Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of the walking independence on lower extremity and trunk muscle activity during straight-leg raising following incomplete cervical cord injury.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Validation of a Biomechanical Injury and Disease Assessment Platform Applying an Inertial-Based Biosensor and Axis Vector Computation.Electronics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrunk control (TC) constitutes one of the main objectives in the rehabilitation of people with a spinal cord injury (SCI), but there are few clinically validated tests to assess it. Accelerometers have been proposed as sensitive and suitable procedures to assess TC.
objectiveTo evaluate test-retest reliability, construct and criterion validity of accelerometer parameters to assess TC in people with SCI.
methodsA cross-sectional study of simultaneous application of Clinical Trunk Control Test (CTCT) and accelerometer evaluation was conducted. Accelerometers were placed on the trunks of 27 people with SCI and 15 people without SCI. Reliability was assessed by three repeated measures in random order of selected static and dynamic TC tasks. Acceleration on three axes was analyzed using five metrics. Criterion validity was assessed by analyzing correlation of acceleration to CTCT scores. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing capacity of inertial measurement units (IMU) to differentiate individual's characteristics, ASIA Impairment scale, gait capacity, level of TC, and neurological level of injury.
resultsReliable IMU data were obtained in people with SCI and without SCI, of all accelerometer axes, metrics, and tested items of the CTCT. Reliability of acceleration decreases with the increasing demand for TC tasks. Ten acceleration parameters showed construct and criterion validity.
conclusionAccelerometer parameters are reliable, valid, and sensitive to evaluate TC in people with SCI. SIGNIFICANCE: A set of IMU parameters were validated as reliable and valid measures to evaluate TC, which could be useful for the assessment of progression of people with SCI and clinical interventions.
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.