Literature DB >> 20399101

Appropriateness of plantar pressure measurement devices: a comparative technical assessment.

Claudia Giacomozzi1.   

Abstract

Accurate plantar pressure measurements are mandatory in both clinical and research contexts. Differences in accuracy, precision and reliability of the available devices have prevented so far the onset of standardization processes or the definition of reliable reference datasets. In order to comparatively assess the appropriateness of the most used pressure measurement devices (PMD) on-the-market, in 2006 the Institute the author is working for approved a two-year scientific project aimed to design, validate and implement dedicated testing methods for both in-factory and on-the field assessment. A first testing phase was also performed which finished in December 2008. Five commercial PMDs using different technologies-resistive, elastomer-based capacitive, air-based capacitive-were assessed and compared with respect to absolute pressure measurements, hysteresis, creep and COP estimation. The static and dynamic pressure tests showed very high accuracy of capacitive, elastomer-based technology (RMSE<0.5%), and quite a good performance of capacitive, air-based technology (RMSE<5%). High accuracy was also found for the resistive technology by TEKSCAN (RMSE<2.5%), even though a complex ad hoc calibration was necessary. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20399101     DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.03.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  22 in total

1.  Validation of plantar pressure measurements for a novel in-shoe plantar sensory replacement unit.

Authors:  Zimi Sawacha
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

2.  Validation of plantar pressure measurements for a novel in-shoe plantar sensory replacement unit.

Authors:  Reed Ferber; Talia Webber; Breanne Everett; Marcel Groenland
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

3.  The reliability of plantar pressure assessment during barefoot level walking in children aged 7-11 years.

Authors:  Stephen D Cousins; Stewart C Morrison; Wendy I Drechsler
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Reliability of the TekScan MatScan(R) system for the measurement of plantar forces and pressures during barefoot level walking in healthy adults.

Authors:  Gerard V Zammit; Hylton B Menz; Shannon E Munteanu
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Reliability of plantar pressure platforms.

Authors:  Jocelyn F Hafer; Mark W Lenhoff; Jinsup Song; Joanne M Jordan; Marian T Hannan; Howard J Hillstrom
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.840

6.  The effects of backpack loads and spinal stabilization exercises on the dynamic foot pressure of elementary school children with idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Suemin Lee; Jemyung Shim
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2015-07-22

7.  Estimation of ground reaction forces and ankle moment with multiple, low-cost sensors.

Authors:  Daniel A Jacobs; Daniel P Ferris
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 4.262

8.  Relationship of the mobility of the sacroiliac joint with foot plant pressure.

Authors:  Rebeka Boaventura Guimarães; Cesario Rui Callou Filho; Alex Rey Norberto; Renata Salatini; Juliana Zangirolami-Raimundo; Rodrigo Daminello Raimundo
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2021-06-18

9.  Reliability of the TekScan MatScan® system for the measurement of postural stability in older people with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Angela Brenton-Rule; Joshua Mattock; Matthew Carroll; Nicola Dalbeth; Sandra Bassett; Hylton B Menz; Keith Rome
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Effectiveness of scalpel debridement for painful plantar calluses in older people: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Karl B Landorf; Adam Morrow; Martin J Spink; Chelsey L Nash; Anna Novak; Julia Potter; Hylton B Menz
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.