ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Cross-sectional study comparing smart insoles and manual methods for short physical performance battery in hip fracture patients.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a widely used tool for assessing physical function in older adults, including those who experienced a hip fracture. Traditionally, medical professionals perform the SPPB manually, which is time-consuming and prone to subjective interpretation. However, recent technological advancements have introduced smart insoles that can automatically capture and analyze data related to gait and balance, potentially offering a more objective and efficient method for performing the SPPB.
methodsIn this study, we aimed to compare the smart insole method versus the manual method for SPPB assessment in hip fracture patients. We recruited a sample of 57 patients with hip fracture aged 50 years or older. The participants underwent both the smart insole assessment and the manual assessment simultaneously. The SPPB consists of three subtests: balance, gait speed, and chair stands.
resultsThe balance test scores slightly increased with smart insoles, showing a mean difference of 0.086 and a p-value of 0.037. In contrast, chair stand and gait speed tests showed negligible differences, with p-values of 0.777 and 1.000, respectively. The overall SPPB scores were closely matched between the methods, with a minimal mean difference of 0.103 and a p-value of 0.282. High correlations were observed across the assessments, with r of 0.95 for individual tests and 0.98 for total SPPB scores.
conclusionThe smart insole method provides a reliable and efficient alternative to the manual method for assessing SPPB in hip fracture patients. Smart insoles in assessments can save time and resources while improving accuracy and standardization of SPPB measurements.
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.