市售可穿戴生物反馈步态设备的功效证据:以消费者为中心的评论。

Q2 Medicine
Kedar K V Mate, Ahmed Abou-Sharkh, Maedeh Mansoubi, Aeshah Alosaimi, Helen Dawes, Wright Michael, Olivia Stanwood, Sarah Harding, Daniel Gorenko, Nancy E Mayo
{"title":"市售可穿戴生物反馈步态设备的功效证据:以消费者为中心的评论。","authors":"Kedar K V Mate, Ahmed Abou-Sharkh, Maedeh Mansoubi, Aeshah Alosaimi, Helen Dawes, Wright Michael, Olivia Stanwood, Sarah Harding, Daniel Gorenko, Nancy E Mayo","doi":"10.2196/40680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson's language.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":36224,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","volume":"10 ","pages":"e40680"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157455/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kedar K V Mate, Ahmed Abou-Sharkh, Maedeh Mansoubi, Aeshah Alosaimi, Helen Dawes, Wright Michael, Olivia Stanwood, Sarah Harding, Daniel Gorenko, Nancy E Mayo\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/40680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson's language.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e40680\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157455/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/40680\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/40680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:市场上用于步态训练的可穿戴技术设备或传感器的数量正在不断增加。这些设备可以将治疗延伸到临床环境之外,从而填补空白。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,当人们无法获得一对一的治疗时,这一点就显得非常重要。这些设备在治疗效果机制、目标步态参数、可用性以及支持其声明的证据力度方面存在很大差异:本研究旨在建立一份以改善步态模式和行走行为为目标的设备清单,并确定公众可通过商业途径获得的设备的有效性声明所依据的证据的强度:由于没有系统的或可重复的方法来识别公众可用的步态训练技术,我们采用了一种务实、反复的方法,同时使用灰色文献和公开发表的文献。我们使用了四种方法:简单的词汇,包括一些非专业人士的建议;由特定疾病组织或慈善机构认可的设备;特定障碍搜索词;以及系统性综述。3 位作者分别提取了一份可找到的针对步行的技术设备清单。对于确定的每种装置,其功效证据均从网站上显示的资料中提取,全文文章则从科学数据库 PubMed、Ovid MEDLINE、Scopus 或 Google Scholar 中获取。有关目标人群、反馈机制、疗效或有效性证据以及商业可用性的其他信息则从发表的资料或网站中获取。我们采用牛津循证医学中心的分类方法为每项涉及该设备的研究划分了证据等级。我们还提出了针对运动和移动设备的临床评估报告指南:这项以消费者为中心的综述搜索策略共搜索到 17 种生物反馈设备,这些设备声称可通过各种感官反馈机制改善步态质量。在这 17 种设备中,有 11 种(65%)为市售设备,6 种(35%)处于不同的研发阶段。在这 11 种商用设备中,有 4 种(36%)可找到支持其功效的证据。这些设备大多针对帕金森病患者。有关这些设备的关键信息的报告并不一致;此外,也没有用通俗易懂的语言对研究结果进行总结:结论:目前向公众提供的可帮助他们做出明智选择的信息量不足,有时所提供的信息还具有误导性。支持有效性的证据并没有涵盖技术吸收的所有方面。商业上可获得的技术有助于在临床环境之外提供连续性治疗,但有必要证明其有效性,以支持这些技术提出的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review.

Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review.

Background: The number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims.

Objective: This study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public.

Methods: As there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility.

Results: The search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson's language.

Conclusions: The amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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