ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessment of Foot Strike Angle and Forward Propulsion with Wearable Sensors in People with Stroke.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examination of effect and responder to real-time auditory feedback during overground gait for stroke: a randomized cross-over study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- The Relation Between Hemiparetic Gait Patterns and Walking Function After Stroke, as Measured with Wearable Sensors.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Effective retraining of foot elevation and forward propulsion is a critical aspect of gait rehabilitation therapy after stroke, but valuable feedback to enhance these functions is often absent during home-based training. To enable feedback at home, this study assesses the validity of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to measure the foot strike angle (FSA), and explores eight different kinematic parameters as potential indicators for forward propulsion. Twelve people with stroke performed walking trials while equipped with five IMUs and markers for optical motion analysis (the gold standard). The validity of the IMU-based FSA was assessed via Bland-Altman analysis, ICC, and the repeatability coefficient. Eight different kinematic parameters were compared to the forward propulsion via Pearson correlation. Analyses were performed on a stride-by-stride level and within-subject level. On a stride-by-stride level, the mean difference between the IMU-based FSA and OMCS-based FSA was 1.4 (95% confidence: -3.0; 5.9) degrees, with ICC = 0.97, and a repeatability coefficient of 5.3 degrees. The mean difference for the within-subject analysis was 1.5 (95% confidence: -1.0; 3.9) degrees, with a mean repeatability coefficient of 3.1 (SD: 2.0) degrees. Pearson's r value for all the studied parameters with forward propulsion were below 0.75 for the within-subject analysis, while on a stride-by-stride level the foot angle upon terminal contact and maximum foot angular velocity could be indicative for the peak forward propulsion. In conclusion, the FSA can accurately be assessed with an IMU on the foot in people with stroke during regular walking. However, no suitable kinematic indicator for forward propulsion was identified based on foot and shank movement that could be used for feedback in people with stroke.
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.