Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827506›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Automated Analysis of the Two-Minute Walk Test in Clinical Practice Using Accelerometer Data.

Katrin Trentzsch, Benjamin Melzer, Heidi Stölzer-Hutsch, Rocco Haase, Paul Bartscht, Paul Meyer, Tjalf Ziemssen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Katrin TrentzschCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2832-4640
Benjamin MelzerCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Heidi Stölzer-HutschCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Rocco HaaseCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2465-4909
Paul BartschtCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Paul MeyerCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Tjalf ZiemssenCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological Clinic, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8799-8202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the core problems for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is the impairment of their ability to walk, which can be severely restrictive in everyday life. Therefore, monitoring of ambulatory function is of great importance to be able to effectively counteract disease progression. An extensive gait analysis, such as the Dresden protocol for multidimensional walking assessment, covers several facets of walking impairment including a 2-min walk test, in which the distance taken by the patient in two minutes is measured by an odometer. Using this approach, it is questionable how precise the measuring methods are at recording the distance traveled. In this project, we investigate whether the current measurement can be replaced by a digital measurement method based on accelerometers (six Opal sensors from the Mobility Lab system) that are attached to the patient's body. We developed two algorithms using these data and compared the validity of these approaches using the results from 2-min walk tests from 562 pwMS that were collected with a gold-standard odometer. In 48.4% of pwMS, we detected an average relative measurement error of less than 5%, while results from 25.8% of the pwMS showed a relative measurement error of up to 10%. The algorithm had difficulties correctly calculating the walking distances in another 25.8% of pwMS; these results showed a measurement error of more than 20%. A main reason for this moderate performance was the variety of pathologically altered gait patterns in pwMS that may complicate the step detection. Overall, both algorithms achieved favorable levels of agreement (r = 0.884 and r = 0.980) with the odometer. Finally, we present suggestions for improvement of the measurement system to be implemented in the future.

Indexed as

digital tools and applicationsgait analysismobilitymultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID34827506
PMCPMC8615930

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.