Evaluating Real-World Ambulation and Activity in Prosthetic Users with Wearable Sensors
Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports, ISSN: 2167-4833, Vol: 10, Issue: 1, Page: 8-16
2022
- 9Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures9
- Readers9
Review Description
Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to gather information that would motivate researchers, prosthetic development engineers, and health care providers to expand the emphasis on functional mobility, activity, and exercise that prosthetic users perform in real-world settings. Intuitive measures of daily activity performed in-tandem with laboratory assessments could provide a more complete perspective of functional performance. Recent Findings: The use of wearable sensors to assess prosthetic use has gained traction in the recent decade and can provide ecologically valid real-world mobility and activity data. This knowledge can be used to promote exercise and develop interventions that may mitigate the comorbidities related to limb loss. Not all wearable sensors perform well on prosthetic users, and sample periods (usually 7 days) are probably too short. High tech watches from major manufacturers still have substantial errors in estimating heart rate and energy expenditure across a range of intensities, but upgrades are occurring frequently. Summary: Objective metrics that quantify real-world mobility and activity provide a unique perspective that compliments laboratory and survey outcomes to better inform on the effectiveness of prosthetic interventions. However, choosing an appropriate sensor that is valid and sensitive is critical to capture meaningful outcomes and requires careful consideration of the activity of interest and the effects of different prosthetic prescriptions.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know