The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ISway: a sensitive, valid and reliable measure of postural control
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians need a practical, objective test of postural control that is sensitive to mild neurological disease, shows experimental and clinical validity, and has good test-retest reliability. We developed an instrumented test of postural sway (ISway) using a body-worn accelerometer to offer an objective and practical measure of postural control. METHODS: We conducted two separate studies with two groups of subjects. Study I: sensitivity and experimental concurrent validity. Thirteen subjects with early, untreated Parkinson's disease (PD) and 12 age-matched control subjects (CTR) were tested in the laboratory, to compare sway from force-plate COP and inertial sensors. Study II: test-retest reliability and clinical concurrent validity. A different set of 17 early-to-moderate, treated PD (tested ON medication), and 17 age-matched CTR subjects were tested in the clinic to compare clinical balance tests with sway from inertial sensors. For reliability, the sensor was removed, subjects rested for 30 min, and the protocol was repeated. Thirteen sway measures (7 time-domain, 5 frequency-domain measures, and JERK) were computed from the 2D time series acceleration (ACC) data to determine the best metrics for a clinical balance test. RESULTS: Both center of pressure (COP) and ACC measures differentiated sway between CTR and untreated PD. JERK and time-domain measures showed the best test-retest reliability (JERK ICC was 0.86 in PD and 0.87 in CTR; time-domain measures ICC ranged from 0.55 to 0.84 in PD and from 0.60 to 0.89 in CTR). JERK, all but one time-domain measure, and one frequency measure were significantly correlated with the clinical postural stability score (r ranged from 0.50 to 0.63, 0.01 < p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we recommend a subset of the most sensitive, reliable, and valid ISway measures to characterize posture control in PD: 1) JERK, 2) RMS amplitude and mean velocity from the time-domain measures, and 3) centroidal frequency as the best frequency measure, as valid and reliable measures of balance control from ISway.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In addition, good agreement was found between sway and spatiotemporal gait measures from wearables and other established technologies [23, 31, 32].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“In PD, wearables were used to detect and quantify cardinal motor symptoms including bradykinesia [19], tremor [20, 21], and postural sway [22, 23] as well as medication-evoked adverse symptoms such as dyskinesia [24–27] and motor fluctuations [28, 29].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Postural sway measures derived from wearables have been examined for test–retest reliability (ICC 0.55–0.86) [23] and the mediolateral sway and jerk were shown to be sensitive to detect progression of postural instability in PD over time [22].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“For example, the postural sway measures in PD have been shown to be reliable and sensitive to longitudinal changes in laboratory settings [22, 23].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Predominantly acceleration signals were used in hospital and free-living settings, even though gyroscope signals have shown promise for increasing the sensitivity and specificity when measuring dyskinesia and postural instability in laboratory settings [23–26].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30 · Cited by 6,903
Human balance and posture control during standing and walking
Winter, D. (1995) · Gait & Posture · doi:10.1016/0966-6362(96)82849-9 · Cited by 3,638
Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale
(2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_184495 · Cited by 3,071
Sensorimotor Integration in Human Postural Control
Peterka, R. J. (2002) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.2002.88.3.1097 · Cited by 2,425
Recent developments in Parkinson's disease
Fahn, S., Elton, R., MARSDEN, C. D., Calne, D. B., & Goldstein, M. (1986) · Raven Press eBooks · Cited by 2,306
Members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale
Fahn, S. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,163
Measures of postural steadiness: differences between healthy young and elderly adults
Prieto, T. E., Myklebust, J. B., Hoffmann, R. G., Lovett, E. G., & Myklebust, B. M. (1996) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/10.532130 · Cited by 1,872
The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to Differentiate Balance Deficits
Horak, F. B., Wrisley, D. M., & Frank, J. (2009) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20080071 · Cited by 1,062
Self-citationPostural stability in the elderly: a comparison between fallers and non-fallers
Melzer, I. (2004) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afh218 · Cited by 736
The relevance of clinical balance assessment tools to differentiate balance deficits.
Mancini, M., & Horak, F. B. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 695
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Techniques and Methods for Testing the Postural Function in Healthy and Pathological Subjects
Paillard, T., & Noé, F. (2015) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2015/891390 · Cited by 543
Levodopa I s a D ouble‐ E dged S word for B alance and G ait in P eople W ith P arkinson's D isease
Curtze, C., Nutt, J. G., Carlson‐Kuhta, P., Mancini, M., & Horak, F. B. (2015) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.26269 · Cited by 406
Self-citationPasluosta, C. F., Gassner, H., Winkler, J., Klucken, J., & Eskofier, B. M. (2015) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2015.2461555 · Cited by 323
Wearable inertial sensors for human movement analysis
Iosa, M., Picerno, P., Paolucci, S., & Morone, G. (2016) · Expert Review of Medical Devices · doi:10.1080/17434440.2016.1198694 · Cited by 282
Mobility Lab to Assess Balance and Gait with Synchronized Body-worn Sensors
King, M. M. L. (2013) · Journal of Bioengineering and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.4172/2155-9538.s1-007 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Mancini, M., Salarian, A., Carlson-Kuhta, P., Zampieri, C., King, L., Chiari, L., & Horak, F. B.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Bologna (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Mancini, Martina
- Venue
- Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59
- ISSN
- 1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3481400
- OpenAlex
- W2093375256
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 52.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Kinetics Foundation
- National Institutes of Health (AG006457, 5r37ag006457-28)
- National Institute on Aging (R37-AG006457, R01AG006457)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (RC1NS068678)
- NIH Clinical Center
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Keywords
- postural sway, postural control, Parkinson's disease, wearable accelerometers, inertial sensors, balance assessment, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, center of pressure, frequency domain analysis
- MeSH terms
- Acceleration, Aged, Algorithms, Biomechanical Phenomena, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Postural Balance, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parkinson Disease, Reproducibility of Results
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
