Literature DB >> 23486219

Comments and reply to: Foot plantar pressure measurement system: a review. Sensors 2012, 12, 9884-9912.

Nachiappan Chockalingam1, Aoife Healy, Roozbeh Naemi, Philip Burgess-Walker, Abdul Hadi Abdul Razak, Aladin Zayegh, Rezaul K Begg, Yufridin Wahab.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 23486219      PMCID: PMC3658759          DOI: 10.3390/s130303527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sensors (Basel)        ISSN: 1424-8220            Impact factor:   3.576


× No keyword cloud information.

Comments

We would like to comment on a recent review article published in Sensors by Razak et al. [1]. The authors provided a review of plantar pressure measurement systems which included the discussion of the recently developed WalkinSense® system. While the authors correctly identified that our group completed research using this system [2], they have inaccurately reported the manufacturer of the system and our research findings. The authors stated that this system was developed by our group, however, as stated in our article [2], this system was developed by Tomorrow Options Microelectronics (Sheffield, UK). Additionally they stated inaccurately that the WalkinSense® system is similar to the F-Scan® (Tekscan, Boston, MA, USA) hardware and software and that our research concluded that WalkinSense® had a better repeatability when compared to other commercially available systems. Our research [2] clearly concluded that the WalkinSense® system was found to be as repeatable as the F-Scan® system. There are several papers which outline the existing technologies [3], the protocols used for data collection [4,5] and the repeatability of existing systems [6]. Whilst this paper [1], is mainly intended for a different audience when compared to clinical papers, it is very important that previously published information is carefully considered, critically reviewed and succinctly presented in a review paper. We felt compelled to write this note so that: (1) it is not misinterpreted that we developed this system and (2) our research findings are not inaccurately reported. We acknowledge your concerns and would like to apologize for the unintended errors in our paper [1] while quoting two points from Healy et al. [2]. Firstly, the manufacturer of the system is inaccurately identified. Secondly, our sentence “has a better repeatability compared to other commercially available systems” should rather read “equal repeatability compared to F-Scan system”. The corrections made are as listed below: On page 9896, lines 12–13, the sentence “has a better repeatability compared to other commercially available systems” should be “equal repeatability compared to the F-Scan® system”. On page 9897, lines 2–3, the sentence “It appears that only the sensor is their own development, the rest of the system is similar to F-Scan® (Tekscan, USA) hardware and software.” should be “The “WalkinSense” system was developed by Tomorrow Options Microelectronics (Sheffield, UK). This portable system's hardware includes eight individual sensors as well as a data acquisition and processing unit, whereas the proprietary software (WalkinSense version 0.96) records and displays plantar pressure profiles”. On page 9897, line 14, the sentence “developed their own transducer but seems to have a limited number of sensor placements” should be “has a limited number of sensor placements”. On page 9900, line 24, the sentence “used F-Scan® (Tekscan, USA) for the sensor” should be “used a low-cost pressure transducer”.
  5 in total

1.  Repeatability of WalkinSense® in shoe pressure measurement system: A preliminary study.

Authors:  Aoife Healy; Philip Burgess-Walker; Roozbeh Naemi; Nachiappan Chockalingam
Journal:  Foot (Edinb)       Date:  2012-01-20

2.  Repeatability of the Pedar-X in-shoe pressure measuring system.

Authors:  A K Ramanathan; P Kiran; G P Arnold; W Wang; R J Abboud
Journal:  Foot Ankle Surg       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 2.705

3.  A comparison of the 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot.

Authors:  Sicco A Bus; Antony de Lange
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Variability of plantar pressure data. A comparison of the two-step and midgait methods.

Authors:  T G McPoil; M W Cornwall; L Dupuis; M Cornwell
Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc       Date:  1999-10

5.  Foot plantar pressure measurement system: a review.

Authors:  Abdul Hadi Abdul Razak; Aladin Zayegh; Rezaul K Begg; Yufridin Wahab
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 3.576

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.