Lauren C Benson1, Christian A Clermont2, Eva Bošnjak3, Reed Ferber4. 1. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. Electronic address: lauren.benson@ucalgary.ca. 2. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. Electronic address: christian.clermont@ucalgary.ca. 3. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. Electronic address: eva.bosnjak@ucalgary.ca. 4. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Running Injury Clinic, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. Electronic address: rferber@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative gait analysis is essential for evaluating walking and running patterns for markers of pathology, injury, or other gait characteristics. It is expected that the portability, affordability, and applicability of wearable devices to many different populations will have contributed advancements in understanding the real-world gait patterns of walkers and runners. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to identify how wearable devices are being used for gait analysis in out-of-lab settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SportDiscus. Each of the included articles was assessed using a custom quality assessment. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the participants, protocol, sensor(s), and analysis. RESULTS: A total of 61 articles were reviewed: 47 involved gait analysis during walking, 13 involved gait analysis during running, and one involved both walking and running. Most studies performed adequately on measures of reporting, and external and internal validity, but did not provide a sufficient description of power. Small, unobtrusive wearable devices have been used in retrospective studies, producing unique measures of gait quality. Walking, but not running, studies have begun to use wearable devices for gait analysis among large numbers of participants in their natural environment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages provided by the portability and accessibility of wearable devices, more studies monitoring gait over long periods of time, among large numbers of participants, and in natural walking and running environments are needed to analyze real-world gait patterns, and would facilitate prospective, subject-specific, and subgroup investigations. The development of wearables-specific metrics for gait analysis provide insights regarding the quality of gait that cannot be determined using traditional components of in-lab gait analyses. However, guidelines for the usability of wearable devices and the validity of wearables-based measurements of gait quality need to be established.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative gait analysis is essential for evaluating walking and running patterns for markers of pathology, injury, or other gait characteristics. It is expected that the portability, affordability, and applicability of wearable devices to many different populations will have contributed advancements in understanding the real-world gait patterns of walkers and runners. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to identify how wearable devices are being used for gait analysis in out-of-lab settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SportDiscus. Each of the included articles was assessed using a custom quality assessment. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the participants, protocol, sensor(s), and analysis. RESULTS: A total of 61 articles were reviewed: 47 involved gait analysis during walking, 13 involved gait analysis during running, and one involved both walking and running. Most studies performed adequately on measures of reporting, and external and internal validity, but did not provide a sufficient description of power. Small, unobtrusive wearable devices have been used in retrospective studies, producing unique measures of gait quality. Walking, but not running, studies have begun to use wearable devices for gait analysis among large numbers of participants in their natural environment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages provided by the portability and accessibility of wearable devices, more studies monitoring gait over long periods of time, among large numbers of participants, and in natural walking and running environments are needed to analyze real-world gait patterns, and would facilitate prospective, subject-specific, and subgroup investigations. The development of wearables-specific metrics for gait analysis provide insights regarding the quality of gait that cannot be determined using traditional components of in-lab gait analyses. However, guidelines for the usability of wearable devices and the validity of wearables-based measurements of gait quality need to be established.
Authors: Marie Kelly; Peter Jones; Ryan Wuebbles; Vipul Lugade; Daniel Cipriani; Nicholas G Murray Journal: Measurement (Lond) Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.927
Authors: Rachel Mason; Liam T Pearson; Gillian Barry; Fraser Young; Oisin Lennon; Alan Godfrey; Samuel Stuart Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Jessica C Selinger; Jennifer L Hicks; Rachel W Jackson; Cara M Wall-Scheffler; Derek Chang; Scott L Delp Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 10.900
Authors: Ranavolo Alberto; Francesco Draicchio; Tiwana Varrecchia; Alessio Silvetti; Sergio Iavicoli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390