CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Physical Activity and HealthChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Step Counting and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Healthy Elderly: Accuracy of 2 Motion Sensors

Furlanetto, Karina C., Bisca, Gianna W., Oldemberg, Nicoli, Sant'Anna, Thaís J., Morakami, Fernanda K., Camillo, Carlos A., Cavalheri, Vinicius, Hernandes, Nidia A. +4 more·2010·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To compare the accuracy of 2 motion sensors (a pedometer and a multisensor) in terms of step counting and estimation of energy expenditure (EE) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and in healthy elderly.Design In this descriptive study, all participants wore both motion sensors while performing a treadmill walking protocol at 3 different speeds corresponding to 30%, 60%, and 100% of the average speed achieved during a six-minute walk test. As criterion methods, EE was estimated by indirect calorimetry, and steps were registered by videotape.Setting Research laboratory at a university hospital.Participants Patients with COPD (n=30; 17 men; mean age +/- SD, 67+/-8 y; mean forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV(1)] predicted +/- SD, 46%+/-17%; mean body mass index [BMI] +/- SD, 24+/-4 kg.m(2)) and matched healthy elderly (n=30; 15 men; mean age +/- SD, 68+/-7 y; mean FEV(1) predicted +/- SD, 104%+/-21%; mean BMI +/- SD, 25+/-3 kg.m(2)).Interventions Not applicable.Main outcome measure Step counting and EE estimation during a treadmill walking protocol.Results The pedometer was accurate for step counting and EE estimation in both patients with COPD and healthy elderly at the higher speed. However, it showed significant underestimation at the 2 slower speeds in both groups. The multisensor did not detect steps accurately at any speed, although it accurately estimated EE at all speeds in healthy elderly and at the intermediate and higher speeds in patients with COPD.Conclusions In both patients with COPD and healthy elderly, the multisensor showed better EE estimates during most walking speeds than the pedometer. Conversely, for step counting, accuracy is observed only with the pedometer during the higher walking speed in both groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.024

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Furlanetto et al and Patel et al showed that a multi-sensor system measuring galvanic skin response, heat flow and skin temperature in addition to motion provided accurate estimates of energy expenditure.

    “Furlanetto et al [116] and Patel et al. [117] showed that a multi-sensor system, which measured galvanic skin response, heat flow and skin temperature in addition to motion, provided accurate estimates of energy expenditure.”

    From A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation (2012) · cites this paper as [116]

  • Although not accurate at step counting, the multi-sensor system outperformed step counters in estimating energy expenditure at slow walking speeds.

    “Although not accurate at step counting, the multi-sensor system outperformed the step counters in estimating energy expenditure at slow walking speeds.”

    From A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation (2012) · cites this paper as [116]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Furlanetto, K. C., Bisca, G. W., Oldemberg, N., Sant'Anna, T. J., Morakami, F. K., Camillo, C. A., Cavalheri, V., Hernandes, N. A., Probst, V. S., Ramos, E. M., Brunetto, A. F., & Pitta, F.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Londrina (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-02
Volume
91
Issue
2
Pages
261-267
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.024
OpenAlex
W2034650040
Cited by
87
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acervo Digital da Universidade Estadual Paulista (Universidade Estadual Paulista) (submittedVersion)
  • UNESP Institutional Repository (São Paulo State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, step counting, energy expenditure estimation, pedometers, walking speed, treadmill walking, 6-minute walk test, measurement accuracy, older adults, indirect calorimetry
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Aged, Energy Metabolism, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Transducers, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Walking, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review