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 |
Inertial Sensors to Assess Gait Quality in Patients with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review of Technical and Analytical Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00817 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aliénor Vienne, Rémi P. Barrois, Stéphane Buffat, Damien Ricard, Pierre-Paul Vidal |
| Abstract |
Gait disorders are major causes of falls in patients with neurological diseases. Understanding these disorders allows prevention and better insights into underlying diseases. InertiaLocoGraphy (ILG) -the quantification of gait by using inertial measurement units (IMUs) -shows great potential to address this public health challenge, but protocols vary widely and normative values of gait parameters are still unavailable. This systematic review critically compares ILG protocols, questions features extracted from inertial signals and proposes a semeiological analysis of clinimetric characteristics for use in neurological clinical routine. For this systematic review, PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for articles assessing gait quality by using IMUs that were published from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2016. ILG was used to assess gait in a wide range of neurological disorders - including Parkinson disease, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, cerebral palsy, and cerebellar atrophy - as well as in the faller or frail older population and in people presenting rheumatological pathologies. However, results have not yet been driving changes in clinical practice. One reason could be that studies mainly aimed at comparing pathological gait to healthy gait, but there is stronger need for semiological descriptions of gait perturbation, severity or prognostic assessment. Furthermore, protocols used to assess gait using IMUs are too many. Likely, outcomes are highly heterogeneous and difficult to compare across large panels of studies. Therefore, homogenization is needed to foster the use of ILG to assess gait quality in neurological routine practice. The pros and cons of each protocol are emphasized so that a compromise can be reached. As well, analysis of seven complementary clinical criteria (springiness, sturdiness, smoothness, steadiness, stability, symmetry, synchronization) is advocated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 269 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 16% |
| Researcher | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 17% |
| Unknown | 65 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 60 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 19 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 32 | 12% |
| Unknown | 82 | 30% |
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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,893,544
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,674
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,056
of 313,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#483
of 622 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 313,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 622 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.