Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074771›Full record

ReviewJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2023

Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review.

Kedar K V Mate, Ahmed Abou-Sharkh, Maedeh Mansoubi, Aeshah Alosaimi, Helen Dawes, Wright Michael, Olivia Stanwood, Sarah Harding, Daniel Gorenko, Nancy E Mayo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

10 authors.

Kedar K V MateFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0027-846X
Ahmed Abou-SharkhFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-2279
Maedeh MansoubiMedical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8829-2217
Aeshah AlosaimiKing Faisal Specialized Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Helen DawesMedical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2933-5213
Wright MichaelFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Olivia StanwoodFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Sarah HardingFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Daniel GorenkoFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nancy E MayoFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2066-7120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims.

objectiveThis study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public.

methodsAs there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility.

resultsThe search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson's language.

conclusionsThe amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.

Indexed as

biofeedbackmobile phonerehabilitationtechnologieswalking trainingwearables

Identifiers

PMID37074771
PMCPMC10157455

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.