Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40341076›Full record

ArticleNeurological research and practice2025

Exploring the relationship of clinical walking tests with 8-months inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based real world mobility tracking in stroke and spinal cord injury survivors.

Andreas Hug, Tamara Spingler, Viola Pleines, Laura Heutehaus, Mircea Ariel Schoenfeld, Björn Hauptmann, Jürgen Moosburger, Roland Thietje, Oliver Pade, Wolfgang Rössy and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Andreas HugSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany. andreas.hug@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7764-1813
Tamara SpinglerSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Viola PleinesSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura HeutehausSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mircea Ariel SchoenfeldKliniken Schmieder, Speyererhofweg 1, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany.
Björn HauptmannNeurological Center, Segeberger Kliniken, Hamdorfer Weg 3, 23795, Bad Segeberg, Germany.
Jürgen MoosburgerMedical Rehabilitation Center for Spinal Cord Injured "Heinrich-Sommer-Klinik", Paulinenstr. 132, 75323, Bad Wildbad, Germany.
Roland ThietjeSpinal Cord Injury Center, BG Klinikum Hamburg, Bergedorfer Straße 10, 21033, Hamburg, Germany.
Oliver PadeKlinikum Bad Bramstedt GmbH, Klinik für Neurologische Rehabilitation, Oskar-Alexander-Str. 26, 24576, Bad Bramstedt, Germany.
Wolfgang RössySt. Rochus-Kliniken, Klinik für Neurologie, Sankt-Rochus-Allee 1, 76669, Bad Schönborn, Germany.
Klaus SteckerAugust-Bier-Klinik, Diekseepromendade 7-11, 23714, Bad Malente, Germany.
Jochen KluckenLuxembourg Institute of Health (LIH), Strassen, Luxembourg.
Tiziana DanielDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cornelia HenselSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rüdiger RuppSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Norbert WeidnerSpinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss 01VSF18032Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss Grant No. 01VSF18032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobility is crucial for participation and quality of life in individuals with sensorimotor impairments, yet scientific evidence on its course in real-world settings is limited. So-called wearables for measuring physical activity might help to overcome this knowledge gap allowing daily measurements of mobility. The aim of the present study is to examine the relationship between clinical walking tests and inertial measurement unit-based mobility tracking in the community setting of stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) survivors.

methodsAt a single observational time point, the precision of the activity tracker was evaluated in a standardized parcours in healthy subjects and stroke or SCI survivors (n=57). This was followed by a multicenter observational cohort study (n=116 participants), in which the mobility of stroke and SCI survivors was assessed over 8 months immediately after discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation. Daily distances covered in the community setting were recorded using the activity tracker. Established walking tests-including the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) and the timed up and go test (TUG)-were conducted at baseline, as well as at 4- and 8-month follow up visits. The relationship between daily distances in the ambulatory setting and 10MWT or TUG performance at discrete study visits (baseline, 4 months (midterm), and 8 months (final) after hospital discharge) was analyzed using regression models.

resultsThe precision of the activity tracker in measuring covered distance in a standardized parcours varied by mobility type. The highest precision was achieved in manual wheelchair users (deviation from zero: -1.5±1.03% (p=0.15) while the least favorable precision was observed in participants with SCI and significant walking impairment (-14.6±2% (p<0.001). The widely used 10MWT speed showed a relationship with the ambulatory daily distance. The regression coefficients [m/(1m/s)] were: 874 (95% CI: 578-1171) at baseline (p<0.001), 895 (95% CI: 614-1176) at midterm (p<0.001), and 824 (95% CI: 537-1112) at the final visit (p<0.001). Interestingly, in the category of good walkers with the most favorable walking speeds the daily covered distance unmasked distinct subgroups with shorter and longer daily distances.

conclusionsFor SCI and stroke survivors, especially medium to fast walkers, activity tracking in real-world settings adds valuable insight beyond clinical walking tests. Clinical studies on rehabilitative interventions for mobility improvement should consider real-life daily distance as a key endpoint.

Indexed as

Clinical walking testsEcological validationEveryday activityMobilitySpinal cord injuryStrokeWalking distanceWheelchair distance

Identifiers

PMID40341076
PMCPMC12063441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.