Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37316858›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Assessing real-world gait with digital technology? Validation, insights and recommendations from the Mobilise-D consortium.

M Encarna Micó-Amigo, Tecla Bonci, Anisoara Paraschiv-Ionescu, Martin Ullrich, Cameron Kirk, Abolfazl Soltani, Arne Küderle, Eran Gazit, Francesca Salis, Lisa Alcock and 40 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 95 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Real-world walking and activity patterns in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the SMART-AGE trial.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Qualitative assessment of mobility in older adults: a scoping review of process-oriented behavioural criteria.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

50 authors.

M Encarna Micó-AmigoTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Tecla BonciDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Insigneo Institute for in Silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Anisoara Paraschiv-IonescuLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Martin UllrichMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Cameron KirkTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abolfazl SoltaniLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Arne KüderleMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Eran GazitCenter for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Francesca SalisDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Lisa AlcockTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Kamiar AminianLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Clemens BeckerRobert Bosch Gesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stefano BertulettiDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Philip BrownThe Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ellen BuckleyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Insigneo Institute for in Silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Alma CantuSchool of Computing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Anne-Elie CarsinBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.
Marco CarusoDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Brian CaulfieldInsight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Andrea CereattiDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Lorenzo ChiariDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering «Guglielmo Marconi», University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ilaria D'AscanioDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering «Guglielmo Marconi», University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Bjoern EskofierMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sara FernstadSchool of Computing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Marcel FroehlichGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Judith Garcia-AymerichBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.
Clint HansenDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jeffrey M HausdorffCenter for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Hugo HidenSchool of Computing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Emily HumeDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alison KeoghInsight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Felix KlugeMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sarah KochBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Dimitrios MegaritisDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Arne MuellerNovartis Institutes of Biomedical Research, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Martijn NiessenMcRoberts BV, The Hague, Netherlands.
Luca PalmeriniDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering «Guglielmo Marconi», University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Lars SchwickertRobert Bosch Gesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung, Stuttgart, Germany.
Kirsty ScottDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Insigneo Institute for in Silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Basil SharrackDepartment of Neuroscience and Sheffield NIHR Translational Neuroscience BRC, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Henrik SillénDigital Health R&D, AstraZeneca, Stockholm, Sweden.
David SingletonInsight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Beatrix VereijkenDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Ioannis VogiatzisDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alison J YarnallTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Lynn RochesterTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Claudia MazzàDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Insigneo Institute for in Silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Silvia Del DinTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. silvia.del-din@ncl.ac.uk.
Mobilise-D consortium

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) can be readily calculated from real-world data collected with wearable devices and ad-hoc algorithms, technical validation is still required. The aim of this paper is to comparatively assess and validate DMOs estimated using real-world gait data from six different cohorts, focusing on gait sequence detection, foot initial contact detection (ICD), cadence (CAD) and stride length (SL) estimates.

methodsTwenty healthy older adults, 20 people with Parkinson's disease, 20 with multiple sclerosis, 19 with proximal femoral fracture, 17 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 12 with congestive heart failure were monitored for 2.5 h in the real-world, using a single wearable device worn on the lower back. A reference system combining inertial modules with distance sensors and pressure insoles was used for comparison of DMOs from the single wearable device. We assessed and validated three algorithms for gait sequence detection, four for ICD, three for CAD and four for SL by concurrently comparing their performances (e.g., accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, absolute and relative errors). Additionally, the effects of walking bout (WB) speed and duration on algorithm performance were investigated.

resultsWe identified two cohort-specific top performing algorithms for gait sequence detection and CAD, and a single best for ICD and SL. Best gait sequence detection algorithms showed good performances (sensitivity > 0.73, positive predictive values > 0.75, specificity > 0.95, accuracy > 0.94). ICD and CAD algorithms presented excellent results, with sensitivity > 0.79, positive predictive values > 0.89 and relative errors < 11% for ICD and < 8.5% for CAD. The best identified SL algorithm showed lower performances than other DMOs (absolute error < 0.21 m). Lower performances across all DMOs were found for the cohort with most severe gait impairments (proximal femoral fracture). Algorithms' performances were lower for short walking bouts; slower gait speeds (< 0.5 m/s) resulted in reduced performance of the CAD and SL algorithms.

conclusionsOverall, the identified algorithms enabled a robust estimation of key DMOs. Our findings showed that the choice of algorithm for estimation of gait sequence detection and CAD should be cohort-specific (e.g., slow walkers and with gait impairments). Short walking bout length and slow walking speed worsened algorithms' performances. Trial registration ISRCTN - 12246987.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyProximal Femoral FracturesAgedGaitHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesWalkingWalking SpeedAccelerometerAlgorithmsCadenceDigital healthDMOsReal-world gaitSLValidationWalkingWearable sensor

Identifiers

PMID37316858
PMCPMC10265910

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.