Journal of bodywork and movement therapies · 2019
Google fit smartphone application or Gt3X Actigraph: Which is better for detecting the stepping activity of individuals with stroke? A validity study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Polese Janaine Cunha, E Faria Giselle Silva, Ribeiro-Samora Giane Amorim, Lima Lorena Pereira, Coelho de Morais Faria Christina Danielli, Scianni Aline Alvim, Teixeira-Salmela Luci Fuscaldi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the GT3X® ActiGraph accelerometer and the Google Fit® smartphone application in estimating stepping activity in people with chronic stroke.
METHODS: Thirty-seven stroke survivors walked along a straight, 10 metre hallway over 5 min at their fastest speeds, wearing the GT3X® ActiGraph accelerometer and a smartphone on their paretic lower limb. The criterion-standard measurement made was the actual number of steps, counted by a trained examiner.
RESULTS: The mean estimated steps measured by the GT3X® ActiGraph and Google Fit® respectively were 276.7 ± 97.6 and 481.0 ± 119.8; that calculated from the examiner's measurements was 472.0 ± 93.9. Statistically significant associations were found between the actual steps and those estimated by the GT3X® ActiGraph (r = 0.56; p < 0.001) and Google Fit® (r = 0.89; p < 0.001). The Google Fit® application demonstrated the highest reliability coefficient (ICC[2,1] = 0.93; p < 0.001; p = 0.37), compared to that of the GT3X® ActiGraph (ICC[2,1] = 0.32; p < 0.001; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The GT3X® ActiGraph underestimated the data and may not be the most appropriate device to estimate the stepping activity of stroke patients. The findings support the validity of a smartphone application in estimating the stepping activity of individuals with stroke, when worn on the paretic side.
METHODS: Thirty-seven stroke survivors walked along a straight, 10 metre hallway over 5 min at their fastest speeds, wearing the GT3X® ActiGraph accelerometer and a smartphone on their paretic lower limb. The criterion-standard measurement made was the actual number of steps, counted by a trained examiner.
RESULTS: The mean estimated steps measured by the GT3X® ActiGraph and Google Fit® respectively were 276.7 ± 97.6 and 481.0 ± 119.8; that calculated from the examiner's measurements was 472.0 ± 93.9. Statistically significant associations were found between the actual steps and those estimated by the GT3X® ActiGraph (r = 0.56; p < 0.001) and Google Fit® (r = 0.89; p < 0.001). The Google Fit® application demonstrated the highest reliability coefficient (ICC[2,1] = 0.93; p < 0.001; p = 0.37), compared to that of the GT3X® ActiGraph (ICC[2,1] = 0.32; p < 0.001; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The GT3X® ActiGraph underestimated the data and may not be the most appropriate device to estimate the stepping activity of stroke patients. The findings support the validity of a smartphone application in estimating the stepping activity of individuals with stroke, when worn on the paretic side.