Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35808426›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Kinect-Based Assessment of Lower Limbs during Gait in Post-Stroke Hemiplegic Patients: A Narrative Review.

Serena Cerfoglio, Claudia Ferraris, Luca Vismara, Gianluca Amprimo, Lorenzo Priano, Giuseppe Pettiti, Manuela Galli, Alessandro Mauro, Veronica Cimolin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Multi-modal synergistic quantitative analysis and rehabilitation assessment of lower limbs for exoskeleton].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Serena CerfoglioDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1983-8204
Claudia FerrarisInstitute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering, National Research Council, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5381-4794
Luca VismaraIstituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, S. Giuseppe Hospital, Strada Luigi Cadorna 90, 28824 Piancavallo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9034-7101
Gianluca AmprimoInstitute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering, National Research Council, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4061-8211
Lorenzo PrianoIstituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, S. Giuseppe Hospital, Strada Luigi Cadorna 90, 28824 Piancavallo, Italy.
Giuseppe PettitiInstitute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering, National Research Council, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0547-0143
Manuela GalliDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2772-4837
Alessandro MauroIstituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, S. Giuseppe Hospital, Strada Luigi Cadorna 90, 28824 Piancavallo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9072-7454
Veronica CimolinDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6299-7254
IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITInstitute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering · ITPolitecnico di Milano · ITPolitecnico di Torino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this review was to present an overview of the state of the art in the use of the Microsoft Kinect camera to assess gait in post-stroke individuals through an analysis of the available literature. In recent years, several studies have explored the potentiality, accuracy, and effectiveness of this 3D optical sensor as an easy-to-use and non-invasive clinical measurement tool for the assessment of gait parameters in several pathologies. Focusing on stroke individuals, some of the available studies aimed to directly assess and characterize their gait patterns. In contrast, other studies focused on the validation of Kinect-based measurements with respect to a gold-standard reference (i.e., optoelectronic systems). However, the nonhomogeneous characteristics of the participants, of the measures, of the methodologies, and of the purposes of the studies make it difficult to adequately compare the results. This leads to uncertainties about the strengths and weaknesses of this technology in this pathological state. The final purpose of this narrative review was to describe and summarize the main features of the available works on gait in the post-stroke population, highlighting similarities and differences in the methodological approach and primary findings, thus facilitating comparisons of the studies as much as possible.

Indexed as

HemiplegiaStrokeBiomechanical PhenomenaGaitHumansLower Extremitygait analysishemiplegiamarkerless motion analysisRGB-D sensorsstroke

Identifiers

PMID35808426
PMCPMC9269781
OpenAlexW4283721208

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.