SynthesisPloS one2026
The ability of the commercial inertial measurement unit-based gait system in determining Parkinson's disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to use the meta-analytic approach to investigate the ability of Inertial Measurement Unit-based commercial system measured gait variability and asymmetry in distinguishing individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) from healthy controls (HC). Cross-sectional studies included using commercial IMU-based systems measuring gait variability or asymmetry at any stage of PD patients and healthy adults were included. Studies were determined by searching for four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual selection and data abstraction of studies were conducted. Hedges' g standardized mean difference was calculated for each variable and pooled using inverse heterogeneity mode. Statistically significant was determined by two tailed z-alpha values ≤0.05 and non-overlapping 95% CI. Heterogeneity was estimated using Q and I2 with alpha values ≤0.10 for Q considered statistically significant. Small-study effects were examined using doi plots and LFK index. A total of 1,725 studies were screened. Eventually, 9 studies representing up to 571 PD patients and 470 HC met the inclusion criteria. Overall gait variability was significantly greater in individuals with PD than in HC (Hedges' g = 0.368, 95% CI 0.139-0.597). The multi-IMU subgroup also showed significantly greater gait variability (Hedges' g = 0.397, 95% CI 0.221-0.574), whereas the one-IMU subgroup did not. However, the between-subgroup difference was not statistically significant, and the multi-IMU prediction interval included null. The primary analysis detected no statistically significant overall difference in gait asymmetry (Hedges' g = 0.180, 95% CI -0.012-0.373). These findings provide preliminary evidence of an average group-level difference in gait variability but hard to establish individual-level discrimination, clinical utility, or the superiority of multi-IMU systems.
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.