Cited by 77Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionGait Recognition and Analysis

Validity and Reproducibility of Inertial Physilog Sensors for Spatiotemporal Gait Analysis in Patients With Stroke

Lefeber, Nina, Degelaen, Marc, Truyers, Chris, Safin, Iwona, Beckwee, David·2019·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Spatiotemporal gait analysis can provide quantitative information to assess treatment outcomes in stroke survivors. Therefore, clinicians need a portable, easy-to-use and low-cost tool that accurately and reliably measures spatiotemporal gait parameters. This paper examined the concurrent validity and reproducibility of the Gait Up gait analysis package for the spatiotemporal gait analysis in subacute stroke survivors. Twenty-five subacute stroke survivors participated in two walking tests. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were synchronously measured by 2 foot-worn inertial sensors (Physilog) and three-dimensional motion capturing (Vicon). Intraclass correlation coefficients, standard errors of measurement, smallest detectable changes, limits of agreement, and the Bland-Altman plots were calculated for the paretic and non-paretic side. After removing a consistent outlier (i.e., data of the paretic side of subject 36 who dragged his foot), agreement between both devices was good to excellent for paretic and non-paretic gait cycle time, cadence, stride length, stride velocity, and double support and moderate for paretic and non-paretic stance and swing. The Bland-Altman plots supported these findings. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for most parameters, except paretic stance and swing. In conclusion, the Gait Up gait analysis package is a valid and reliable tool to measure paretic and non-paretic gait cycle time, cadence, stride length, and stride velocity in subacu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2019.2930751

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 77

Authors
Lefeber, N., Degelaen, M., Truyers, C., Safin, I., & Beckwee, D.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2019-09
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
1865-1874
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2963403203
Cited by
77
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
Keywords
spatiotemporal gait analysis, stroke, inertial sensors, concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, paretic limb, subacute stroke, gait cycle time, cadence, stride length, stride velocity, double support, stance and swing phases, wearable sensors, motion capture comparison
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Gait Analysis, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Gait, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paresis, Reproducibility of Results, Walking, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Stroke

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