IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i9p3177-d353397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using an Accelerometer-Based Step Counter in Post-Stroke Patients: Validation of a Low-Cost Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Negrini

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy)

  • Giulio Gasperini

    (Ospedale Valduce, Clinica Villa Beretta, 23845 Costa Masnaga, Italy)

  • Eleonora Guanziroli

    (Ospedale Valduce, Clinica Villa Beretta, 23845 Costa Masnaga, Italy)

  • Jacopo Antonino Vitale

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Banfi

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy
    Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Franco Molteni

    (Ospedale Valduce, Clinica Villa Beretta, 23845 Costa Masnaga, Italy)

Abstract

Monitoring the real-life mobility of stroke patients could be extremely useful for clinicians. Step counters are a widely accessible, portable, and cheap technology that can be used to monitor patients in different environments. The aim of this study was to validate a low-cost commercial tri-axial accelerometer-based step counter for stroke patients and to determine the best positioning of the step counter (wrists, ankles, and waist). Ten healthy subjects and 43 post-stroke patients were enrolled and performed four validated clinical tests (10 m, 50 m, and 6 min walking tests and timed up and go tests) while wearing five step counters in different positions while a trained operator counted the number of steps executed in each test manually. Data from step counters and those collected manually were compared using the intraclass coefficient correlation and mean average percentage error. The Bland–Altman plot was also used to describe agreement between the two quantitative measurements (step counter vs. manual counting). During walking tests in healthy subjects, the best reliability was found for lower limbs and waist placement (intraclass coefficient correlations (ICCs) from 0.46 to 0.99), and weak reliability was observed for upper limb placement in every test (ICCs from 0.06 to 0.38). On the contrary, in post-stroke patients, moderate reliability was found only for the lower limbs in the 6 min walking test (healthy ankle ICC: 0.69; pathological ankle ICC: 0.70). Furthermore, the Bland–Altman plot highlighted large average discrepancies between methods for the pathological group. However, while the step counter was not able to reliably determine steps for slow patients, when applied to the healthy ankle of patients who walked faster than 0.8 m/s, it counted steps with excellent precision, similar to that seen in the healthy subjects (ICCs from 0.36 to 0.99). These findings show that a low-cost accelerometer-based step counter could be useful for measuring mobility in select high-performance patients and could be used in clinical and real-world settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Negrini & Giulio Gasperini & Eleonora Guanziroli & Jacopo Antonino Vitale & Giuseppe Banfi & Franco Molteni, 2020. "Using an Accelerometer-Based Step Counter in Post-Stroke Patients: Validation of a Low-Cost Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3177-:d:353397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3177-:d:353397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.