ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Accuracy, concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability of pressure-based insoles for gait measurement in chronic stroke patients.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Every Step Counts-How Can We Accurately Count Steps with Wearable Sensors During Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Neurological Conditions?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Wearables are potentially valuable tools for understanding mobility behavior in individuals with neurological disorders and how it changes depending on health status, such as after rehabilitation. However, the accurate detection of gait events, which are crucial for the evaluation of gait performance and quality, is challenging due to highly individual-specific patterns that also vary greatly in movement and speed, especially after stroke. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy, concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability of a commercially available insole system in the detection of gait events and the calculation of stance duration in individuals with chronic stroke. Methods: Pressure insole data were collected from 17 individuals with chronic stroke during two measurement blocks, each comprising three 10-min walking tests conducted in a clinical setting. The gait assessments were recorded with a video camera that served as a ground truth, and pressure insoles as an experimental system. We compared the number of gait events and stance durations between systems. Results and discussion: Over all 3,820 gait events, 90.86% were correctly identified by the insole system. Recall values ranged from 0.994 to 1, with a precision of 1 for all measurements. The F1 score ranged from 0.997 to 1. Excellent absolute agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.874) was observed for the calculation of the stance duration, with a slightly longer stance duration recorded by the insole system (difference of -0.01 s). Bland-Altmann analysis indicated limits of agreement of 0.33 s that were robust to changes in walking speed. This consistency makes the system well-suited for individuals post-stroke. The test-retest reliability between measurement timepoints T1 and T2 was excellent (ICC = 0.928). The mean difference in stance duration between T1 and T2 was 0.03 s. We conclude that the insole system is valid for use in a clinical setting to quantitatively assess continuous walking in individuals 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.