ArticlePloS one2025
Sternum drop during trip recovery differs between the laboratory and real world - An exploratory pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this exploratory study was to compare sternum drop-the decrease in sternum height during an attempt to recover balance after tripping-between lab-induced trips and naturally occurring real-world trips. Twenty community-dwelling adults 71.8 (4.6) years old used three inertial measurement units (IMUs) and a wrist-worn voice recorder daily for three weeks to capture sternum drop during any naturally-occurring real-world trips. Participants then completed a single laboratory testing session during which they were intentionally exposed to two lab-induced trips while wearing the same IMUs to also evaluate sternum drop. All real-world trips resulted in recoveries while only 12 of the 22 lab-induced trips resulted in recoveries (the remaining 10 were falls). When including all lab-induced trips, sternum drop after real-world trips was 8.8 cm smaller (p < 0.001), exhibited less variance (p < 0.001), and was not associated with lab-induced trips (R2 = 0.005; p = 0.757). When only including lab-induced trips that resulted in recoveries, sternum drop after real-world trips did not differ from the lab (p = 0.163), exhibited less variance (p < 0.001) and was not associated with lab-induced trips (R2 = 0.006; p = 0.766). These results were likely dependent upon 1) our lab protocol that required participants to walk at a gait speed that was likely faster than typical gait speed in the real-world, and 2) the aggressive lab tripping obstacle height of 8.6 cm was likely taller than at least some real-world trips. While reducing gait speed and obstacle height in future laboratory studies may improve agreement with real-world trips, this would lower the physical demands during recovery and may not be as effective at revealing factors contributing to falls. Nevertheless, additional research appears warranted to clarify the linkage between lab and real-world trips. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing tripping kinematics between the lab and real world.
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.