↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of kinematic variables obtained by inertial sensors among stroke survivors and healthy older adults in the Functional Reach Test: cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of kinematic variables obtained by inertial sensors among stroke survivors and healthy older adults in the Functional Reach Test: cross-sectional study
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12938-015-0047-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

José Antonio Merchán-Baeza, Manuel González-Sánchez, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas

Abstract

Balance dysfunction is one of the most common problems in people who suffer stroke. To parameterize functional tests standardized by inertial sensors have been promoted in applied medicine. The aim of this study was to compare the kinematic variables of the Functional Reach Test (FRT) obtained by two inertial sensors placed on the trunk and lumbar region between stroke survivors (SS) and healthy older adults (HOA) and to analyze the reliability of the kinematic measurements obtained. Cross-sectional study. Five SS and five HOA over 65. A descriptive analysis of the average range as well as all kinematic variables recorded was developed. The intrasubject and intersubject reliability of the measured variables was directly calculated. In the same intervals, the angular displacement was greater in the HOA group; however, they were completed at similar times for both groups, and HOA conducted the test at a higher speed and greater acceleration in each of the intervals. The SS values were higher than HOA values in the maximum and minimum acceleration in the trunk and in the lumbar region. The SS show less functional reach, a narrower, slower and less accelerated movement during the FRT execution, but with higher peaks of acceleration and speed when they are compared with HOA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 25 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Computer Science 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#424
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,881
of 267,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.