Concurrent validity of walking speed measured by a wearable sensor and a stopwatch during the 10-meter walk test in individuals with stroke.
Brice T Cleland, Titus Alex, Sangeetha Madhavan
PMID 37757594WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable sensors measured walking speeds about 0.07 m/s slower than a stopwatch in people with stroke.
You cannot use these two methods interchangeably. If you switch tools mid-rehab, the drop in speed might be measurement error, not the patient getting worse.
Key findings
01APDM wearable sensors consistently yielded walking speeds that were approximately 0.07 m/s slower than those measured by stopwatch.
02The discrepancy between methods was larger for individuals who walked faster, meaning the error is not constant across the population.
03The minimal detectable change for walking speed was 0.10 to 0.19 m/s, which is similar to the limits of agreement between the two devices.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only used a 3-sensor configuration (feet and lumbar); adding thigh or shank sensors might improve validity, so this finding may not apply to more comprehensive sensor setups. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment or brainstem/cerebellar lesions, so results may not generalize to those with more complex neurological profiles. The sample size for analysis dropped to 55-59 due to equipment malfunction and outlier exclusion.
Declared interests
None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose. The study was supported by NIH funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that the high correlation (ICC ≥0.95) means the two devices give the same numbers. They do not. The absolute difference of 0.07 m/s is large relative to the minimal clinically important difference (0.06–0.16 m/s), so switching devices could lead you to falsely conclude a patient has deteriorated or improved.