ReviewBrain sciences2026
Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Inertial Sensor-Based Wearables for Quantifying Spatial-Temporal Gait Parameters After Stroke: A Systematic Review.
Review in Brain sciences, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review examined the validity and reliability of wearable inertial sensor systems to quantify spatiotemporal gait parameters in post-stroke adults, a population in which gait asymmetry and altered motor control challenge accurate measurement. Sixteen studies involving 300 participants were included. Spatial parameters gait speed, cadence, and step/stride length showed consistently good-to-excellent agreement with reference systems (ICC 0.85-0.98; 95% LoA ±0.03-0.08 m/s for gait speed, ±4-10 steps/min for cadence, and ±3-8 cm for step/stride length) and high test-retest reliability. Temporal parameters demonstrated greater heterogeneity, with larger errors and lower concordance (ICC 0.40-0.85; LoA ±0.04-0.12 s), particularly for swing time (ICC 0.40-0.70; LoA up to ±0.15 s). Paretic-side measurements showed 10-20% lower concordance and 30-50% wider limits of agreement compared with the non-paretic side, although within-subject reliability remained moderate to high. No consistent influence of sensor number on measurement accuracy was observed. Overall, wearable inertial sensors provide robust estimates of spatial gait parameters, whereas temporal outcomes especially swing time remain limited due to challenges in gait event detection under stroke-related biomechanical alterations. These findings highlight the need for standardized protocols and improved algorithms to enhance comparability across studies and support broader clinical adoption.
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.