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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Methodological factors affecting joint moments estimation in clinical gait analysis: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12938-017-0396-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valentina Camomilla, Andrea Cereatti, Andrea Giovanni Cutti, Silvia Fantozzi, Rita Stagni, Giuseppe Vannozzi |
| Abstract |
Quantitative gait analysis can provide a description of joint kinematics and dynamics, and it is recognized as a clinically useful tool for functional assessment, diagnosis and intervention planning. Clinically interpretable parameters are estimated from quantitative measures (i.e. ground reaction forces, skin marker trajectories, etc.) through biomechanical modelling. In particular, the estimation of joint moments during motion is grounded on several modelling assumptions: (1) body segmental and joint kinematics is derived from the trajectories of markers and by modelling the human body as a kinematic chain; (2) joint resultant (net) loads are, usually, derived from force plate measurements through a model of segmental dynamics. Therefore, both measurement errors and modelling assumptions can affect the results, to an extent that also depends on the characteristics of the motor task analysed (i.e. gait speed). Errors affecting the trajectories of joint centres, the orientation of joint functional axes, the joint angular velocities, the accuracy of inertial parameters and force measurements (concurring to the definition of the dynamic model), can weigh differently in the estimation of clinically interpretable joint moments. Numerous studies addressed all these methodological aspects separately, but a critical analysis of how these aspects may affect the clinical interpretation of joint dynamics is still missing. This article aims at filling this gap through a systematic review of the literature, conducted on Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. The final objective is hence to provide clear take-home messages to guide laboratories in the estimation of joint moments for the clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 279 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 17% |
| Researcher | 42 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 14% |
| Unknown | 54 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 83 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 25 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 37 | 13% |
| Unknown | 74 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#425
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,103
of 318,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 318,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.