脑卒中后物理治疗和模拟活动中步进监测的准确性。

Christopher E Henderson, Lindsay Toth, Andrew Kaplan, T George Hornby
{"title":"脑卒中后物理治疗和模拟活动中步进监测的准确性。","authors":"Christopher E Henderson,&nbsp;Lindsay Toth,&nbsp;Andrew Kaplan,&nbsp;T George Hornby","doi":"10.1249/tjx.0000000000000186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/purpose: </strong>The amount of stepping activity during rehabilitation post-stroke can predict walking outcomes, although the most accurate methods to evaluate stepping activity are uncertain with conflicting findings on available stepping monitors during walking assessments. Rehabilitation sessions also include non-stepping activities and the ability of activity monitors to differentiate these activities from stepping is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of different activity monitors worn by individuals post-stroke with variable walking speeds during clinical physical therapy (PT) and research interventions focused on walking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Part I, 28 participants post-stroke wore a StepWatch, ActiGraph with and without a Low Frequency Extension (LFE) filter, and Fitbit on paretic and non-paretic distal shanks at or above the ankle during clinical PT or research interventions with steps simultaneously hand counted. Mean absolute percent errors were compared between limbs and tasks performed. In Part II, 12 healthy adults completed 8 walking and 9 non-walking tasks observed during clinical PT or research. Data were descriptively analyzed and used to assist interpretation of Part I results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Part I results indicate most devices did not demonstrate an optimal limb configuration during research sessions focused on walking, with larger errors during clinical PT on the non-paretic limb. Using the limb that minimized errors for each device, the StepWatch had smaller errors than the ActiGraph and Fitbit (p<0.01), particularly in those who walked < 0.8 m/s. Conversely, errors from the ActiGraph-LFE demonstrated inconsistent differences in step counts between Fitbit and ActiGraph. Part II results indicate that errors observed during different stepping and non-stepping activities were often device-specific, with non-stepping tasks frequently detected as stepping.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The StepWatch and ActiGraph-LFE had smaller errors than the Fitbit or ActiGraph, with greater errors in those walking at slower speeds. Inclusion of non-stepping activities affected step counts and should be considered when measuring stepping activity in individuals post-stroke to predict locomotor outcomes following rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":75243,"journal":{"name":"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9004549/pdf/nihms-1745420.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Step Monitor Accuracy During PostStroke Physical Therapy and Simulated Activities.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher E Henderson,&nbsp;Lindsay Toth,&nbsp;Andrew Kaplan,&nbsp;T George Hornby\",\"doi\":\"10.1249/tjx.0000000000000186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction/purpose: </strong>The amount of stepping activity during rehabilitation post-stroke can predict walking outcomes, although the most accurate methods to evaluate stepping activity are uncertain with conflicting findings on available stepping monitors during walking assessments. Rehabilitation sessions also include non-stepping activities and the ability of activity monitors to differentiate these activities from stepping is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of different activity monitors worn by individuals post-stroke with variable walking speeds during clinical physical therapy (PT) and research interventions focused on walking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Part I, 28 participants post-stroke wore a StepWatch, ActiGraph with and without a Low Frequency Extension (LFE) filter, and Fitbit on paretic and non-paretic distal shanks at or above the ankle during clinical PT or research interventions with steps simultaneously hand counted. Mean absolute percent errors were compared between limbs and tasks performed. In Part II, 12 healthy adults completed 8 walking and 9 non-walking tasks observed during clinical PT or research. Data were descriptively analyzed and used to assist interpretation of Part I results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Part I results indicate most devices did not demonstrate an optimal limb configuration during research sessions focused on walking, with larger errors during clinical PT on the non-paretic limb. Using the limb that minimized errors for each device, the StepWatch had smaller errors than the ActiGraph and Fitbit (p<0.01), particularly in those who walked < 0.8 m/s. Conversely, errors from the ActiGraph-LFE demonstrated inconsistent differences in step counts between Fitbit and ActiGraph. Part II results indicate that errors observed during different stepping and non-stepping activities were often device-specific, with non-stepping tasks frequently detected as stepping.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The StepWatch and ActiGraph-LFE had smaller errors than the Fitbit or ActiGraph, with greater errors in those walking at slower speeds. Inclusion of non-stepping activities affected step counts and should be considered when measuring stepping activity in individuals post-stroke to predict locomotor outcomes following rehabilitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9004549/pdf/nihms-1745420.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.0000000000000186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.0000000000000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

简介/目的:卒中后康复期间的步行活动量可以预测步行结果,尽管评估步行活动的最准确方法尚不确定,在步行评估期间,现有的步行监测结果相互矛盾。康复疗程还包括非步行活动,活动监测器区分这些活动和步行的能力尚不清楚。本研究的目的是检验在临床物理治疗(PT)和研究干预中,不同行走速度的中风后个体所佩戴的不同活动监测器的准确性。方法:在第一部分中,28名中风后的参与者在临床PT或研究干预期间,在踝关节或以上的麻痹和非麻痹远端小腿上佩戴StepWatch、带或不带低频延伸(LFE)滤波器的ActiGraph和Fitbit,同时手动计数步数。肢体和任务之间的平均绝对误差百分比进行比较。在第二部分中,12名健康成人完成了临床PT或研究中观察到的8项步行和9项非步行任务。对数据进行描述性分析,并用于帮助解释第一部分的结果。结果:第一部分结果表明,大多数设备在专注于行走的研究会议中没有表现出最佳的肢体配置,在非麻痹肢体的临床PT中误差更大。结论:StepWatch和ActiGraph- lfe的误差比Fitbit和Fitbit的误差小,但在慢速行走时误差更大。包括非步行活动影响步数,在测量卒中后个体的步行活动以预测康复后的运动结果时应考虑到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Step Monitor Accuracy During PostStroke Physical Therapy and Simulated Activities.

Introduction/purpose: The amount of stepping activity during rehabilitation post-stroke can predict walking outcomes, although the most accurate methods to evaluate stepping activity are uncertain with conflicting findings on available stepping monitors during walking assessments. Rehabilitation sessions also include non-stepping activities and the ability of activity monitors to differentiate these activities from stepping is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of different activity monitors worn by individuals post-stroke with variable walking speeds during clinical physical therapy (PT) and research interventions focused on walking.

Methods: In Part I, 28 participants post-stroke wore a StepWatch, ActiGraph with and without a Low Frequency Extension (LFE) filter, and Fitbit on paretic and non-paretic distal shanks at or above the ankle during clinical PT or research interventions with steps simultaneously hand counted. Mean absolute percent errors were compared between limbs and tasks performed. In Part II, 12 healthy adults completed 8 walking and 9 non-walking tasks observed during clinical PT or research. Data were descriptively analyzed and used to assist interpretation of Part I results.

Results: Part I results indicate most devices did not demonstrate an optimal limb configuration during research sessions focused on walking, with larger errors during clinical PT on the non-paretic limb. Using the limb that minimized errors for each device, the StepWatch had smaller errors than the ActiGraph and Fitbit (p<0.01), particularly in those who walked < 0.8 m/s. Conversely, errors from the ActiGraph-LFE demonstrated inconsistent differences in step counts between Fitbit and ActiGraph. Part II results indicate that errors observed during different stepping and non-stepping activities were often device-specific, with non-stepping tasks frequently detected as stepping.

Conclusions: The StepWatch and ActiGraph-LFE had smaller errors than the Fitbit or ActiGraph, with greater errors in those walking at slower speeds. Inclusion of non-stepping activities affected step counts and should be considered when measuring stepping activity in individuals post-stroke to predict locomotor outcomes following rehabilitation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lifestyle strategies after intentional weight loss: results from the MAINTAIN-pc randomized trial. Associations of physical and social workplace characteristics with movement behaviors at work. Demographic, Clinical, and Psychosocial Predictors of Exercise Adherence: The STRRIDE Trials. Framework to Classify Physical Activity Intervention Studies for Older Adults Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine: 2022 Paper of the Year
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1