ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2024
A Novel, Wearable Inertial Measurement Unit for Stroke Survivors: Validity, Acceptability, and Usability.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity of FuncUseRatio for ecological monitoring of functional arm use after stroke: toward precision neurorehabilitation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Novel Technology and the Internet of Medical Things.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Reproducible candidate kinematic-electromyographic waveform markers of post-stroke gait from public multimodal waveform exports.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
- A Compensatory-Topology and Relay-Gating Graph Network for multimodal stroke rehabilitation assessment.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Assessing the Validity and Reliability of a Single Lumbar-Mounted IMU System for Gait Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Physical human-robot interaction mediates the association of motor impairment and kinematic performance for poststroke arm rehabilitation.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Usability of Inertial Measurement Units for Measuring and Monitoring Activity Post-Stroke: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Beyond Arm Capacity in Chronic Stroke: Evaluating Paretic Arm Non-Use Through Arm Efficiency-A Cross-Sectional Study.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2025Article
- Clinical Application Research on Stroke Situational Intelligent Rehabilitation Training System Based on Wearable Devices: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of an upper limb muscle strength rehabilitation assessment system using particle swarm optimisation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Wearable Technology Applications and Methods to Assess Clinical Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Disorders: Achievements and Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Understanding preferences of stroke survivors for feedback provision about functional movement behavior from wearable sensors: a mixed-methods study.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the concurrent validity, acceptability, and sensor optimization of a consumer-grade, wearable, multi-sensor system to capture quantity and quality metrics of mobility and upper limb movements in stroke survivors.
designSingle-session, cross-sectional.
settingClinical research laboratory.
participantsThirty chronic stroke survivors (age 57 (10) years; 33% female) with mild to severe motor impairments participated.
interventionsNot Applicable.
main outcome measuresParticipants donned 5 sensors and performed standardized assessments of mobility and upper limb (UL) movement. True/false, positive/negative time in active movement for the UL were calculated and compared to criterion-standards using an accuracy rate. Bland-Altman plots and linear regression models were used to establish concurrent validity of UL movement counts, step counts, and stance time symmetry of MiGo against established criterion-standard measures. Acceptability and sensor optimization were assessed through an end-user survey and decision matrix.
resultsMobility metrics showed excellent association with criterion-standards for step counts (video: r=0.988, P<.001, IMU: r=0.921, P<.001) and stance-time symmetry (r=0.722, P<.001). In the UL, movement counts showed excellent to good agreement (paretic: r=0.849, P<.001, nonparetic: r=0.672, P<.001). Accuracy of active movement time was 85.2% (paretic) and 88.0% (nonparetic) UL. Most participants (63.3%) had difficulty donning/doffing the sensors. Acceptability was high (4.2/5).
conclusionsThe sensors demonstrated excellent concurrent validity for mobility metrics and UL movements of stroke survivors. Acceptability of the system was high, but alternative wristbands should be considered.
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.