ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Intra and Inter-Device Reliabilities of the Instrumented Timed-Up and Go Test Using Smartphones in Young Adult Population.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in three-dimensional intra-cycle velocity fluctuation and performance during freestyle swimming among high-level swimmers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Validity and agreement of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test for estimating aerobic and performance-related parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Machine Learning and Statistical Analyses of Sensor Data Reveal Variability Between Repeated Trials in Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Timed-Up and Go (TUG) test is widely utilized by healthcare professionals for assessing fall risk and mobility due to its practicality. Currently, test results are based solely on execution time, but integrating technological devices into the test can provide additional information to enhance result accuracy. This study aimed to assess the reliability of smartphone-based instrumented TUG (iTUG) parameters. We conducted evaluations of intra- and inter-device reliabilities, hypothesizing that iTUG parameters would be replicable across all experiments. A total of 30 individuals participated in Experiment A to assess intra-device reliability, while Experiment B involved 15 individuals to evaluate inter-device reliability. The smartphone was securely attached to participants' bodies at the lumbar spine level between the L3 and L5 vertebrae. In Experiment A, subjects performed the TUG test three times using the same device, with a 5 min interval between each trial. Experiment B required participants to perform three trials using different devices, with the same time interval between trials. Comparing stopwatch and smartphone measurements in Experiment A, no significant differences in test duration were found between the two devices. A perfect correlation and Bland-Altman analysis indicated good agreement between devices. Intra-device reliability analysis in Experiment A revealed significant reliability in nine out of eleven variables, with four variables showing excellent reliability and five showing moderate to high reliability. In Experiment B, inter-device reliability was observed among different smartphone devices, with nine out of eleven variables demonstrating significant reliability. Notable differences were found in angular velocity peak at the first and second turns between specific devices, emphasizing the importance of considering device variations in inertial measurements. Hence, smartphone inertial sensors present a valid, applicable, and feasible alternative for TUG assessment.
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.