ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Instrumental assessment of Sit-to-Stand in Parkinson's disease: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionParkinson's disease (PD) is a growing neurological challenge. The Sit-to-Stand (STS) transition is a key proxy for functional independence and fall risk. While sensor technology offers objective STS assessment, the methodological landscape is highly heterogeneous, lacking standardized protocols. This scoping review systematically maps the literature on the technological assessment of the STS transition in PD, focusing on sensors, tasks, settings, and variables. Additionally, the review details device accessibility and ecological validity in home-based settings, as these are two important elements for large-scale application and implementation in standardised protocols for both clinical assessment and real-world monitoring.
methodsA scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Five major databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science) and citation tracking were used to identify studies from 2015 to 2025. Eligibility criteria included studies with PD patients of any stage undergoing instrumental STS transition assessment. We mapped data according to sensors, tasks, settings, and variables. We performed specific subanalyses on Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs)-distinguishing research-grade 'kinematic' sensors from consumer 'Mobile' devices-and assessed ecological validity (unsupervised vs. supervised) in home-based settings.
resultsFrom 7,368 records, 77 studies were included. Four dominant trends emerged: (1) Technology: IMUs were used in 87% of the studies. (2) Protocol: the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test (60%) was more prevalent than pure STS tasks (22%), (3) Setting: Most assessments occurred in outpatient settings (79%), followed by home-based settings (25%). (4) Functional variables: despite technological sophistication, 'duration' remained the primary variable followed by linear acceleration and angular velocity. Moreover in the home setting, while 74% of studies achieved high ecological validity (unsupervised), a "scalability gap" emerged: 63% still utilized complex research-grade IMUs.
conclusionInstrumental STS transition assessment in PD is a rapidly expanding field. It is dominated by IMU sensors, but fragmented by protocol heterogeneity and a critical "scalability gap" in home monitoring. Complex variables still require non-scalable sensors, while scalable mobile devices have not yet been validated for advanced metrics. Future work must develop robust algorithms for mobile devices and validate metrics to standardise protocols for clinical assessment versus ecological monitoring.
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.