Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35161916›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Test-Retest Reliability of Kinematic and Temporal Outcome Measures for Clinical Gait and Stair Walking Tests, Based on Wearable Inertial Sensors.

Sofie Nilsson, Per Ertzgaard, Mikael Lundgren, Helena Grip

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sofie NilssonDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
Per ErtzgaardDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
Mikael LundgrenDepartment of Rehabilitation, Västervik Hospital, 593 33 Västervik, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8030-1051
Helena GripDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Linköping University · SEOrnsköldsvik Hospital · SEUmeå University · SE

Funding

Medtech4Health, Vinnova 2016-02472MedTech4Health, Vinnova 2019-01379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is important to assess gait function in neurological disorders. A common outcome measure from clinical walking tests is average speed, which is reliable but does not capture important kinematical and temporal aspects of gait function. An extended gait analysis must be time efficient and reliable to be included in the clinical routine. The aim of this study was to add an inertial sensor system to a gait test battery and analyze the test-retest reliability of kinematic and temporal outcome measures. Measurements and analyses were performed in the hospital environment by physiotherapists using customized software. In total, 22 healthy persons performed comfortable gait, fast gait, and stair walking, with 12 inertial sensors attached to the feet, shank, thigh, pelvis, thorax, and arms. Each person participated in 2 test sessions, with about 3-6 days between the sessions. Kinematics were calculated based on a sensor fusion algorithm. Sagittal peak angles, sagittal range of motion, and stride frequency were derived. Intraclass-correlation coefficients were determined to analyze the test-retest reliability, which was good to excellent for comfortable and fast gait, with exceptions for hip, knee, and ankle peak angles during fast gait, which showed moderate reliability, and fast gait stride frequency, which showed poor reliability. In stair walking, all outcome measures except shoulder extension showed good to excellent reliability. Inertial sensors have the potential to improve the clinical evaluation of gait function in neurological patients, but this must be verified in patient groups.

Indexed as

GaitWearable Electronic DevicesBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsWalkingclinical practicegait analysishealthy individualsinertial sensor

Identifiers

PMID35161916
PMCPMC8838027
OpenAlexW4210320860

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.