ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Wearable Devices and Smartphone Inertial Sensors for Static Balance Assessment: A Concurrent Validity Study in Young Adult Population.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability of a Home-Based Smartphone Balance Assessment in Healthy Middle-Aged and Older Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Why Frailty Should Be Assessed in Older Adults Affected by Leprosy and How the Use of Smartphones Could Enhance This Health Monitoring.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Article
- Use of an inertial sensor and a force platform to assess static balance in participants affected by multibacillary leprosy.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Observational
- Assessing Gait & Balance in Adults with Mild Balance Impairment: G&B App Reliability and Validity.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Smartphone-based evaluation of static balance and mobility in long-lasting COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Assessing static balance control improvement following cataract surgery using a smartphone.Digital healthArticle
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
Abstract
Falls represent a public health issue around the world and prevention is an important part of the politics of many countries. The standard method of evaluating balance is posturography using a force platform, which has high financial costs. Other instruments, such as portable devices and smartphones, have been evaluated as low-cost alternatives to the screening of balance control. Although smartphones and wearables have different sizes, shapes, and weights, they have been systematically validated for static balance control tasks. Different studies have applied different experimental configurations to validate the inertial measurements obtained by these devices. We aim to evaluate the concurrent validity of a smartphone and a portable device for the evaluation of static balance control in the same group of participants. Twenty-six healthy and young subjects comprised the sample. The validity for static balance control evaluation of built-in accelerometers inside portable smartphone and wearable devices was tested considering force platform recordings as a gold standard for comparisons. A linear correlation (r) between the quantitative variables obtained from the inertial sensors and the force platform was used as an indicator of the concurrent validity. Reliability of the measures was calculated using Intraclass correlation in a subsample (n = 14). Smartphones had 11 out of 12 variables with significant moderate to very high correlation (r > 0.5, p < 0.05) with force platform variables in open eyes, closed eyes, and unipedal conditions, while wearable devices had 8 out of 12 variables with moderate to very high correlation (r > 0.5, p < 0.05) with force platform variables under the same task conditions. Significant reliabilities were found in closed eye conditions for smartphones and wearables. The smartphone and wearable devices had concurrent validity for the static balance evaluation and the smartphone had better validity results than the wearables for the static balance evaluation.
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.