Evaluation of the Effect of Gait Aids, Such as Canes, Crutches, and Walkers, on the Accuracy of Step Counters in Healthy Individuals.

IF 1.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Pub Date : 2021-01-07 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/ORR.S292255
Paul Kooner, Taran Schubert, James L Howard, Brent A Lanting, Matthew G Teeter, Edward M Vasarhelyi
{"title":"Evaluation of the Effect of Gait Aids, Such as Canes, Crutches, and Walkers, on the Accuracy of Step Counters in Healthy Individuals.","authors":"Paul Kooner,&nbsp;Taran Schubert,&nbsp;James L Howard,&nbsp;Brent A Lanting,&nbsp;Matthew G Teeter,&nbsp;Edward M Vasarhelyi","doi":"10.2147/ORR.S292255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Wearable step-counter devices have become inexpensive tools that enable patients, researchers, and clinicians to objectively monitor physical activity. It is unknown how the use of gait aids, such as canes, crutches, and walkers, affects the accuracy of these devices. Such gait aids are commonly used by patients with chronic physical impairment and after joint-replacement surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of gait aids on the accuracy of wearable step counters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine healthy participants wore a Fitbit step counter on their wrist and hip and performed eight walking tests with canes, crutches, and walkers. Bland-Altman analyses were performed for all eight walking tests in order to compare agreement between measurement techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean overall agreement for subjects walking without gait aids in the hip group was excellent, showing a bias of -2.9, with limits of agreement (LOAs) between -8.72 and 2.95. For use of canes or crutches, the Bland-Altman plots had a range of bias values between the hip and wrist counters from -7.22 to 33.56, with LOAs from -98.55 to 124.2. The wrist counter during the four-wheeled walking test showed very little agreement with the actual step count, with a bias value of 91.33 and LOAs of 64.1-118.6, illustrating exceptionally unreliable step counts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests that these widely commercially available step counters have poor reliability with gait aids, especially walkers, which should be taken into account in research and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19608,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","volume":"13 ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/67/orr-13-1.PMC7802358.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S292255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Wearable step-counter devices have become inexpensive tools that enable patients, researchers, and clinicians to objectively monitor physical activity. It is unknown how the use of gait aids, such as canes, crutches, and walkers, affects the accuracy of these devices. Such gait aids are commonly used by patients with chronic physical impairment and after joint-replacement surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of gait aids on the accuracy of wearable step counters.

Methods: Nine healthy participants wore a Fitbit step counter on their wrist and hip and performed eight walking tests with canes, crutches, and walkers. Bland-Altman analyses were performed for all eight walking tests in order to compare agreement between measurement techniques.

Results: Mean overall agreement for subjects walking without gait aids in the hip group was excellent, showing a bias of -2.9, with limits of agreement (LOAs) between -8.72 and 2.95. For use of canes or crutches, the Bland-Altman plots had a range of bias values between the hip and wrist counters from -7.22 to 33.56, with LOAs from -98.55 to 124.2. The wrist counter during the four-wheeled walking test showed very little agreement with the actual step count, with a bias value of 91.33 and LOAs of 64.1-118.6, illustrating exceptionally unreliable step counts.

Conclusion: This study suggests that these widely commercially available step counters have poor reliability with gait aids, especially walkers, which should be taken into account in research and clinical settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估步态辅助工具(如手杖、拐杖和助行器)对健康个体计步器准确性的影响。
背景:可穿戴式计步器已经成为一种廉价的工具,使患者、研究人员和临床医生能够客观地监测身体活动。目前尚不清楚使用手杖、拐杖和助行器等步态辅助设备如何影响这些设备的准确性。这种步态辅助通常用于慢性身体损伤患者和关节置换手术后。本研究的目的是确定步态辅助对可穿戴计步器准确性的影响。方法:9名健康参与者在手腕和臀部佩戴Fitbit计步器,并使用手杖、拐杖和助行器进行8次步行测试。Bland-Altman分析对所有8项步行测试进行,以比较测量技术之间的一致性。结果:在髋关节组中,无步态辅助行走的受试者的平均总体一致性非常好,显示偏差为-2.9,一致性限制(LOAs)在-8.72和2.95之间。对于使用手杖或拐杖,Bland-Altman图在髋部和腕部计数器之间的偏差值范围为-7.22至33.56,LOAs范围为-98.55至124.2。在四轮步行测试中,手腕计数器显示与实际步数的一致性很小,偏差值为91.33,LOAs为64.1-118.6,说明步数异常不可靠。结论:本研究表明,这些广泛商用的计步器在辅助步态方面的可靠性较差,尤其是助步器,这在研究和临床设置中应予以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedic Research and Reviews
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Research and Reviews is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the patho-physiology of the musculoskeletal system, trauma, surgery and other corrective interventions to restore mobility and function. Advances in new technologies, materials, techniques and pharmacological agents will be particularly welcome. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Patho-physiology and bioengineering, Technologies and materials science, Surgical techniques, including robotics, Trauma management and care, Treatment including pharmacological and non-pharmacological, Rehabilitation and Multidisciplinarian care approaches, Patient quality of life, satisfaction and preference, Health economic evaluations. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science and technology, clinical studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信