Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2018
Step count accuracy of StepWatch and FitBit One™ among individuals with a unilateral transtibial amputation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Arch Elisa S, Sions Jaclyn M, Horne John, Bodt Barry A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Step counts, obtained via activity monitors, provide insight into activity level in the free-living environment. Accuracy assessments of activity monitors are limited among individuals with lower-limb amputations.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the step count accuracy of both monitors during forward-linear and complex walking and (2) compare monitor step counts in the free-living environment.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Adult prosthetic users with a unilateral transtibial amputation were equipped with StepWatch and FitBit One™. Participants completed an in-clinic evaluation to evaluate each monitor's step count accuracy during forward linear and complex walking followed by a 7-day step count evaluation in the free-living environment.
RESULTS: Both monitors showed excellent accuracy during forward, linear walking (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.97-0.99, 95% confidence interval = 0.93-0.99; percentage error = 4.3%-6.2%). During complex walking, percentage errors were higher (13.0%-15.5%), intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.88-0.90, and 95% confidence intervals were 0.69-0.96. In the free-living environment, the absolute percentage difference between monitor counts was 25.4%, but the counts had a nearly perfect linear relationship.
CONCLUSION: Both monitors accurately counted steps during forward linear walking. StepWatch appears to be more accurate than FitBit during complex walking but a larger sample size may confirm these findings. FitBit consistently counted fewer steps than StepWatch during free-living walking. Clinical relevance The StepWatch and FitBit are acceptable tools for assessing forward, linear walking for individuals with transtibial amputation. Given the results' consistenty in the free-living enviorment, both tools may ultimiately be able to be used to count steps in the real world, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the step count accuracy of both monitors during forward-linear and complex walking and (2) compare monitor step counts in the free-living environment.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Adult prosthetic users with a unilateral transtibial amputation were equipped with StepWatch and FitBit One™. Participants completed an in-clinic evaluation to evaluate each monitor's step count accuracy during forward linear and complex walking followed by a 7-day step count evaluation in the free-living environment.
RESULTS: Both monitors showed excellent accuracy during forward, linear walking (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.97-0.99, 95% confidence interval = 0.93-0.99; percentage error = 4.3%-6.2%). During complex walking, percentage errors were higher (13.0%-15.5%), intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.88-0.90, and 95% confidence intervals were 0.69-0.96. In the free-living environment, the absolute percentage difference between monitor counts was 25.4%, but the counts had a nearly perfect linear relationship.
CONCLUSION: Both monitors accurately counted steps during forward linear walking. StepWatch appears to be more accurate than FitBit during complex walking but a larger sample size may confirm these findings. FitBit consistently counted fewer steps than StepWatch during free-living walking. Clinical relevance The StepWatch and FitBit are acceptable tools for assessing forward, linear walking for individuals with transtibial amputation. Given the results' consistenty in the free-living enviorment, both tools may ultimiately be able to be used to count steps in the real world, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.