OBJECTIVE: Adherence is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of orthopaedic footwear. The aim of this study is to assess the validity of a new temperature sensor for objective assessment of footwear use and non-use. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: The validity of a temperature sensor (Orthotimer, Balingen, Germany) to discriminate between time periods of use and non-use of footwear over a period of 48 h was assessed using 3 algorithms, in 10 healthy participants (mean age 32.8 years (standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years)). Footwear use measured with the sensor was compared with a reference standard, footwear use measured with a time-lapse sports camera secured to the shoe. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Hours of footwear use. RESULTS: Mean footwear use measured with the camera was 8.10 (SD 2.46) h per day. Mean footwear uses measured with the sensor and calculated with the 3 algorithms were 8.16 (SD 2.37), 8.86 (SD 2.48) and 4.91 (SD 3.17) h per day for the Groningen algorithm, algorithm-25, and algorithm-29, respectively. The correlation between footwear use assessed with the camera and with the sensor was: rGroningen = 0.995, ralg25 = 0.919 and ralg29 = 0.680). CONCLUSION: The temperature sensor is a valid instrument to measure footwear use and non-use when using the Groningen algorithm.
OBJECTIVE: Adherence is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of orthopaedic footwear. The aim of this study is to assess the validity of a new temperature sensor for objective assessment of footwear use and non-use. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: The validity of a temperature sensor (Orthotimer, Balingen, Germany) to discriminate between time periods of use and non-use of footwear over a period of 48 h was assessed using 3 algorithms, in 10 healthy participants (mean age 32.8 years (standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years)). Footwear use measured with the sensor was compared with a reference standard, footwear use measured with a time-lapse sports camera secured to the shoe. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Hours of footwear use. RESULTS: Mean footwear use measured with the camera was 8.10 (SD 2.46) h per day. Mean footwear uses measured with the sensor and calculated with the 3 algorithms were 8.16 (SD 2.37), 8.86 (SD 2.48) and 4.91 (SD 3.17) h per day for the Groningen algorithm, algorithm-25, and algorithm-29, respectively. The correlation between footwear use assessed with the camera and with the sensor was: rGroningen = 0.995, ralg25 = 0.919 and ralg29 = 0.680). CONCLUSION: The temperature sensor is a valid instrument to measure footwear use and non-use when using the Groningen algorithm.
Authors: Peter A Lazzarini; Ryan T Crews; Jaap J van Netten; Sicco A Bus; Malindu E Fernando; Paul J Chadwick; Bijan Najafi Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-04-29
Authors: Hylton B Menz; Polly Q Lim; Sheree E Hurn; Karen J Mickle; Andrew K Buldt; Matthew P Cotchett; Edward Roddy; Anita E Wluka; Bircan Erbas; Shannon E Munteanu Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Jonathan Golledge; Malindu Fernando; Peter Lazzarini; Bijan Najafi; David G Armstrong Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.576