ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Evaluation of gait characteristics in subjects with locomotive syndrome using wearable gait sensors.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective slow walking speed is associated with locomotive syndrome severity in 34,935 adults undergoing medical checkups.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Translating in-person care to telehealth: a secondary analysis of GP consultations on musculoskeletal conditions.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Association of visceral fat area with early-stage locomotive syndrome across various age groups: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Validity of Wearable Gait Analysis System for Measuring Lower-Limb Kinematics during Timed Up and Go Test.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Difference in the Assessment of Knee Extension/Flexion Angles during Gait between Two Calibration Methods for Wearable Goniometer Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Validity of AI-Based Gait Analysis for Simultaneous Measurement of Bilateral Lower Limb Kinematics Using a Single Video Camera.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Performance in Gait and the Timed-Up and Go Test.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Validity and Reliability of a Wearable Goniometer Sensor Controlled by a Mobile Application for Measuring Knee Flexion/Extension Angle during the Gait Cycle.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Digital health in musculoskeletal care: where are we heading?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Lower-Limb Kinematics during Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test in Subjects with Locomotive Syndrome (LS) Using Wearable Gait Sensors (H-Gait System).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with locomotive syndrome (LS) require nursing care services owing to problems with locomotion and the musculoskeletal system. Individuals with LS generally have a reduced walking speed compared with those without LS. However, differences in lower-limb kinematics and gait between individuals with and without LS are not fully understood. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of the gait kinematics of individuals with LS using wearable sensors.
methodsWe assessed 125 participants (mean age 73.0 ± 6.7 years) who used a public health promotion facility. Based on the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25), these participants were grouped into the non-LS (GLFS-25 < 7), LS-stage 1 (GLFS-25 7-16), and LS-stage 2 (GLFS-25 ≥ 16) groups (larger GLFS-25 scores indicate worse locomotive ability). Spatiotemporal parameters and lower-limb kinematics during the 10-m walk test were analyzed by the "H-Gait system", which is a motion analysis system that was developed by the authors and is based on seven inertial sensors. The peak joint angles during the stance and swing phases, as well as the gait speed, cadence, and step length were compared among all groups.
resultsThere were 69 participants in the non-LS group, 33 in the LS-stage 1 group, and 23 in the LS-stage 2 group. Compared with the non-LS group, the LS-stage 2 group showed significantly smaller peak angles of hip extension (9.5 ± 5.3° vs 4.2 ± 8.2°, P = 0.002), hip flexion (34.2 ± 8.8° vs 28.5 ± 9.5°, P = 0.026), and knee flexion (65.2 ± 18.7° vs 50.6 ± 18.5°, P = 0.005). The LS-stage 1 and LS-stage 2 groups had a significantly slower mean gait speed than the non-LS group (non-LS: 1.3 ± 0.2 m/s, LS-stage 1: 1.2 ± 0.2 m/s, LS-stage 2: 1.1 ± 0.2 m/s, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe LS-stage 2 group showed significantly different lower-limb kinematics compared with the non-LS group, including smaller peak angles of hip extension, hip flexion, and knee flexion. It would be useful to assess and improve these small peak joint angles during gait for individuals classified as LS-stage 2.
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.