Aging is one of the greatest challenges in modern society. The development of wearable solutions for telemonitoring biological signals has been viewed as a strategy to enhance older adults’ healthcare sustainability. This study aims to review the biological signals remotely monitored by technologies in older adults. PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Web of Science, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports were systematically searched in December 2021. Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses of remote health-related biological and environmental monitoring signals in older adults were considered, with publication dates between 2016 and 2022, written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Studies referring to conference proceedings or articles with abstract access only were excluded. The data were extracted independently by two reviewers, using a predefined table form, consulting a third reviewer in case of doubts or concerns. Eighteen studies were included, fourteen systematic reviews and four meta-analyses. Nine of the reviews included older adults from the community, whereas the others also included institutionalized participants. Heart and respiratory rate, physical activity, electrocardiography, body temperature, blood pressure, glucose, and heart rate were the most frequently measured biological variables, with physical activity and heart rate foremost. These were obtained through wearables, with the waist, wrist, and ankle being the most mentioned body regions for the device’s placement. Six of the reviews presented the psychometric properties of the systems, most of which were valid and accurate. In relation to environmental signals, only two articles presented data on this topic. Luminosity, temperature, and movement were the most mentioned variables. The need for large-scale long-term health-related telemonitoring implementation of studies with larger sample sizes was pointed out by several reviews in order to define the feasibility levels of wearable devices.

Objective: To identify and summarize biomechanical assessment approaches in interlimb coordination on poststroke gait. Introduction: Interlimb coordination involves complex neurophysiological mechanisms that can be expressed through the biomechanical output. The deepening of this concept would have a significant contribution in gait rehabilitation in patients with an asymmetric neurological impairment as poststroke adults. Inclusion criteria: Poststroke adults (>19 years old), with assessment of interlimb coordination during gait, in an open context, according to the Population, Concept, Context framework. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science™, Scopus, and gray literature in Google Scholar™, according to the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Studies written in Portuguese or English language and published between database inception and 14 November 2021 were included. Qualitative studies, conference proceedings, letters, and editorials were excluded. The main conceptual categories were “author/year”, “study design”, “participant’s characteristics”, “walking conditions”, “instruments” and “outcomes”. Results: The search identified 827 potentially relevant studies, with a remaining seven fulfilling the established criteria. Interlimb coordination was assessed during walking in treadmill (n = 3), overground (n = 3) and both (n = 1). The instruments used monitored electromyography (n = 2), kinetics (n = 2), and kinematics (n = 4) to assess spatiotemporal parameters (n = 4), joint kinematics (n = 2), anteroposterior ground reaction forces (n = 2), and electromyography root mean square (n = 2) outcomes. These outcomes were mostly used to analyze symmetry indices or ratios, to calculate propulsive impulse and external mechanical power produced on the CoM, as well as antagonist coactivation. Conclusions: Assessment of interlimb coordination during gait is important for consideration of natural auto-selected overground walking, using kinematic, kinetic, and EMG instruments. These allow for the collection of the main biomechanical outcomes that could contribute to improve better knowledge of interlimb coordination assessment in poststroke patients.

Reliable biomechanical methods to assess interlimb coordination during the double-support phase in post-stroke subjects are needed for assessing movement dysfunction and related variability. The data obtained could provide a significant contribution for designing rehabilitation programs and for their monitorisation. The present study aimed to determine the minimum number of gait cycles needed to obtain adequate values of repeatability and temporal consistency of lower limb kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic parameters during the double support of walking in people with and without stroke sequelae. Eleven post-stroke and thirteen healthy participants performed 20 gait trials at self-selected speed in two separate moments with an interval between 72 h and 7 days. The joint position, the external mechanical work on the centre of mass, and the surface electromyographic activity of the tibialis anterior, soleus, gastrocnemius medialis, rectus femoris, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus muscles were extracted for analysis. Both the contralesional and ipsilesional and dominant and non-dominant limbs of participants with and without stroke sequelae, respectively, were evaluated either in trailing or leading positions. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used for assessing intra-session and inter-session consistency analysis. For most of the kinematic and the kinetic variables studied in each session, two to three trials were required for both groups, limbs, and positions. The electromyographic variables presented higher variability, requiring, therefore, a number of trials ranging from 2 to >10. Globally, the number of trials required inter-session ranged from 1 to >10 for kinematic, from 1 to 9 for kinetic, and 1 to >10 for electromyographic variables. Thus, for the double support analysis, three gait trials were required in order to assess the kinematic and kinetic variables in cross-sectional studies, while for longitudinal studies, a higher number of trials (>10) were required for kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables.