↓ Skip to main content

Wearable Sensor Use for Assessing Standing Balance and Walking Stability in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wearable Sensor Use for Assessing Standing Balance and Walking Stability in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0123705
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan P Hubble, Geraldine A Naughton, Peter A Silburn, Michael H Cole

Abstract

Postural instability and gait disability threaten the independence and well-being of people with Parkinson's disease and increase the risk of falls and fall-related injuries. Prospective research has shown that commonly-used clinical assessments of balance and walking lack the sensitivity to accurately and consistently identify those people with Parkinson's disease who are at a higher risk of falling. Wearable sensors provide a portable and affordable alternative for researchers and clinicians who are seeking to objectively assess movements and falls risk in the clinical setting. However, no consensus currently exists on the optimal placements for sensors and the best outcome measures to use for assessing standing balance and walking stability in Parkinson's disease patients. Hence, this systematic review aimed to examine the available literature to establish the best sensor types, locations and outcomes to assess standing balance and walking stability in this population. Papers listed in three electronic databases were searched by title and abstract to identify articles measuring standing balance or walking stability with any kind of wearable sensor among adults diagnosed with PD. To be eligible for inclusion, papers were required to be full-text articles published in English between January 1994 and December 2014 that assessed measures of standing balance or walking stability with wearable sensors in people with PD. Articles were excluded if they; i) did not use any form of wearable sensor to measure variables associated with standing balance or walking stability; ii) did not include a control group or control condition; iii) were an abstract and/or included in the proceedings of a conference; or iv) were a review article or case study. The targeted search of the three electronic databases identified 340 articles that were potentially eligible for inclusion, but following title, abstract and full-text review only 26 articles were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for methodological quality and relevant data from the papers were extracted and synthesized. Quality assessment of these included articles indicated that 31% were of low methodological quality, while 58% were of moderate methodological quality and 11% were of high methodological quality. All studies adopted a cross-sectional design and used a variety of sensor types and outcome measures to assess standing balance or walking stability in people with Parkinson's disease. Despite the typically low to moderate methodological quality, 81% of the studies reported differences in sensor-based measures of standing balance or walking stability between different groups of Parkinson's disease patients and/or healthy controls. These data support the use of wearable sensors for detecting differences in standing balance and walking stability between people with PD and controls. Further high-quality research is needed to better understand the utility of wearable sensors for the early identification of Parkinson's disease symptoms and for assessing falls risk in this population. CRD42014010838.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 410 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 18%
Researcher 55 13%
Student > Master 55 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Other 77 18%
Unknown 89 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 77 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 61 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 10%
Neuroscience 38 9%
Computer Science 23 5%
Other 62 15%
Unknown 118 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,742,483
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#111,380
of 194,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,033
of 264,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,369
of 7,087 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7,087 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.