ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Suitability of a Low-Cost Wearable Sensor to Assess Turning in Healthy Adults.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability and Reliability of the Axivity AX6 Accelerometer in Technical and Human Motion Conditions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Utility of Calibrating Wearable Sensors before Quantifying Infant Leg Movements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Turning is a complex measure of gait that accounts for over 50% of daily steps. Traditionally, turning has been measured in a research grade laboratory setting, however, there is demand for a low-cost and portable solution to measure turning using wearable technology. This study aimed to determine the suitability of a low-cost inertial sensor-based device (AX6, Axivity) to assess turning, by simultaneously capturing and comparing to a turn algorithm output from a previously validated reference inertial sensor-based device (Opal), in healthy young adults. Methodology: Thirty participants (aged 23.9 ± 4.89 years) completed the following turning protocol wearing the AX6 and reference device: a turn course, a two-minute walk (including 180° turns) and turning in place, alternating 360° turn right and left. Both devices were attached at the lumbar spine, one Opal via a belt, and the AX6 via double sided tape attached directly to the skin. Turning measures included number of turns, average turn duration, angle, velocity, and jerk. Results: Agreement between the outcomes from the AX6 and reference device was good to excellent for all turn characteristics (all ICCs > 0.850) during the turning 360° task. There was good agreement for all turn characteristics (all ICCs > 0.800) during the two-minute walk task, except for moderate agreement for turn angle (ICC 0.683). Agreement for turn outcomes was moderate to good during the turns course (ICCs range; 0.580 to 0.870). Conclusions: A low-cost wearable sensor, AX6, can be a suitable and fit-for-purpose device when used with validated algorithms for assessment of turning outcomes, particularly during continuous turning tasks. Future work needs to determine the suitability and validity of turning in aging and clinical cohorts within low-resource settings.
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.