↓ Skip to main content

A Review of the Accuracy and Utility of Motion Sensors to Measure Physical Activity of Frail, Older Hospitalized Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, November 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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
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
A Review of the Accuracy and Utility of Motion Sensors to Measure Physical Activity of Frail, Older Hospitalized Patients
Published in
Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, November 2015
DOI 10.1123/japa.2014-0190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth McCullagh, Noeleen M. Brady, Christina Dillon, N. Frances Horgan

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to examine the utility and accuracy of commercially-available motion sensors to measure step-count and time-spent-upright in frail older hospitalised patients. A database search (CINAHL and PubMed, 2004-2014) and a further hand search of papers' references yielded 24 validation studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifteen motion sensors (eight pedometers, six accelerometers and one sensor systems) have been tested in older adults. Only three have been tested in hospital patients; two of which detected postures and postural changes accurately but none estimated step-count accurately. Only one motion sensor remained accurate at speeds typical of frail older hospitalised patients but has yet to be tested in this cohort. Time-spent-upright can be accurately measured in the hospital, but further validation studies are required to determine which, if any, motion sensor can accurately measure step-count.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Sports and Recreations 6 11%
Computer Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 35%

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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,300,195
of 13,243,534 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Aging & Physical Activity
#172
of 295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,407
of 268,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Aging & Physical Activity
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 295 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 268,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.