ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Usability of Inertial Measurement Units for Measuring and Monitoring Activity Post-Stroke: A Scoping Review.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stroke is the most common cause of disability in adults, resulting in declines in overall activity. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) allow for the monitoring of activity patterns in various settings, informing clinical interventions and patient self-management. This review aimed to synthesize existing research evaluating the usability of IMUs for monitoring activity in people with stroke. This scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for publications evaluating the usability of IMUs for monitoring activity post-stroke. Fourteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in chronic stroke with data collected in real-world conditions. Usability findings indicated that most stroke participants and clinicians reported a positive user experience; however many reported difficulties with devices due to stroke-related impairments. Importantly, the interpretation of this finding was impacted by poorly reported impairments of stroke participants. Only a few studies evaluated end-user experiences (people with stroke and clinicians) in interpreting and engaging with feedback based on data from IMUs. Future usability studies in stroke populations should aim to understand participant characteristics that influence device engagement, with a focus on user experience in interpreting device-generated metrics.
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.