Systematic review on the application of wearable inertial sensors to quantify everyday life motor activity in people with mobility impairments.
Fabian Marcel Rast, Rob Labruyère
PMID 33148315WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable sensors can track specific movements like sitting duration or gait speed in people with mobility impairments.
However, the studies varied too much in method and reporting to confirm which sensor setups work best or how accurate they are for clinical use.
Key findings
01The review identified 95 studies applying wearable inertial sensors to quantify everyday life motor activity in people with mobility impairments.
02Outcome measures were grouped into four categories: maintaining/changing body position, walking/moving, wheelchair mobility, and upper extremity activities.
03Methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting prevented any comparison of validity, reproducibility, or usability between different sensor technologies and algorithms.
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 review could not perform a meta-analysis because the included studies used inconsistent metrics and methods, making direct comparison impossible. It excluded proprietary algorithms from commercial devices, so the findings may not reflect what is currently available in clinical practice. Most included studies were validation or classification accuracy studies, not large clinical trials, so the clinical utility of these measures for patient outcomes remains unproven. Usability and patient compliance with wearing the sensors were rarely reported, leaving unknown how practical these tools are for long-term daily use.
Declared interests
The paper states it was supported by non-U.S. government funding. No specific commercial conflicts of interest or author disclosures are detailed in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as evidence that wearable sensors are ready for routine clinical decision-making. The authors explicitly state they provide no recommendations on the best sensor type or placement because the existing studies are too heterogeneous to compare.