Monitoring activity of inpatient lower limb prosthetic users in rehabilitation using accelerometry: Validation study

Salih, Salih A.; Peel, Nancye M.; Burgess, Kara

doi:10.1177/2055668316642387

Cited by 8 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most commonly used actimeter in the lower-limb studies was the StepWatch, which counts steps but does not classify the type of activity. Some clinic-based studies included activity classification [ 13 , 106 , 107 ], but most community-based studies only assessed activity by counting steps per minute or per day. The studies that classified the type of activity, used activity monitors with sampling frequencies that ranged between 10 Hz and 60 Hz.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are inertial measurement units that are pre-programmed to classify activities, such as the activPAL (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, UK) and the ActiGraph (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, USA). Studies have used these activity classification methods in a laboratory setting [ 13 , 106 , 107 ], but only a couple have used these methods to monitor activity in the community [ 45 , 90 ]. These activity classification algorithms have mostly been designed for use with sensors worn on the thigh (ActivPAL), the wrist and the waist (studies have used the Actigraph at varying locations but the wrist and waist have the most validation).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell

Diment

Micó-Amigo

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Understanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper-and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring, with particular focus on low-resource settings. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis users during daily-living. Results: Sixty lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lowerlimb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm. Conclusions: Activity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user's requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell

Diment

Micó-Amigo

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Actigraph was shown to be 96.6% accurate compared to the observers. Salih, Peel, and Burgess (2016) conducted a laboratory-based study with 21 participants with limb absence (of whom n = 17 had transtibial absence). The number of males in the sample was 15.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Criterion-Related Validity of the activPAL™ Accelerometer When Measuring Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Adults With Lower Limb Absence

Deans

Kirk

McGarry

et al. 2020

Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Accurate measurement of physical behavior in adults with lower limb absence is essential to report true patterns of physical behavior and the effectiveness of interventions. The effect of placing accelerometers on prostheses may also affect the reliability and validity. Purpose: To assess reliability and criterion-related validity of the activPAL for measuring incidental and purposeful stepping, and reclining and stepping time in adults with unilateral lower limb absence. Methods: 15 adults with unilateral lower limb absence completed simulated lifestyle activities in a laboratory setting that were retrospectively scored via video analysis. Objective data were obtained simultaneously from two activPAL monitors placed on the sound and prosthetic side. Data were analyzed using one-way intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests and Cohen’s d. Results: Reliability (prosthetic side vs. sound side) was poor for incidental steps (ICC = .05, d = 0.48) but acceptable for all other measures (ICC = .77–.88; d = .00–.18). Mean activPAL measures, although highly related to the criterion, underestimated, on average, stepping and time-related variables. Differences were large for all stepping variables (d = .38–.96). Conclusions: The activPAL is a reliable measurement tool in adults with lower limb absence when used in a laboratory setting. Placement of the monitor on the sound side limb is recommended for testing. The activPAL shows evidence of relative validity, but not absolute validity. Further evaluation is needed to assess whether similar evidence is found in free-living activity and sedentary contexts.

show abstract

“…40,43 The most commonly used actimeter in the lower-limb studies was the StepWatch, which counts steps but does not classify the type of activity. Some clinic-based studies included activity classification, 13,107,108 but most community-based studies only assessed activity by counting steps per minute or per day. The studies that classified the type of activity, used activity monitors with sampling frequencies that ranged between 10 Hz and 60 Hz.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are inertial measurement units that are pre-programmed to classify activities, such as the activPAL (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, UK) and the ActiGraph (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, USA). Studies have used these activity classification methods in a laboratory setting, 13,107,108 but only a couple have used these methods to monitor activity in the community. 45,90 These activity classification algorithms have mostly been designed for use with sensors worn on the thigh (ActivPAL), the wrist and the waist (studies have used the Actigraph at varying locations but the wrist and waist have the most validation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell¹,

Diment²,

Amigo³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUnderstanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper- and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis-users during daily-living.Results60 lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lower-limb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm.ConclusionsActivity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user’s requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

Monitoring activity of inpatient lower limb prosthetic users in rehabilitation using accelerometry: Validation study

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Reliability and Criterion-Related Validity of the activPAL™ Accelerometer When Measuring Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Adults With Lower Limb Absence

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About