Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Regenerative and Technological Section / Systematic Review

Free Access

Effects of Wearable Sensor-Based Balance and Gait Training on Balance, Gait, and Functional Performance in Healthy and Patient Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Gordt K.a · Gerhardy T.a · Najafi B.b · Schwenk M.a

Author affiliations

aNetwork Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; bInterdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance (iCAMP), Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

Corresponding Author

Katharina Gordt

Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University

Bergheimer Strasse 20

DE-69115 Heidelberg (Germany)

E-Mail gordt@nar.uni-heidelberg.de

Related Articles for ""

Gerontology 2018;64:74-89

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Abstract

Background: Wearable sensors (WS) can accurately measure body motion and provide interactive feedback for supporting motor learning. Objective: This review aims to summarize current evidence for the effectiveness of WS training for improving balance, gait and functional performance. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a WS exercise program were included. Study quality was examined by the PEDro scale. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the effects of WS balance training on the most frequently reported outcome parameters. Results: Eight RCTs were included (Parkinson n = 2, stroke n = 1, Parkinson/stroke n = 1, peripheral neuropathy n = 2, frail older adults n = 1, healthy older adults n = 1). The sample size ranged from n = 20 to 40. Three types of training paradigms were used: (1) static steady-state balance training, (2) dynamic steady-state balance training, which includes gait training, and (3) proactive balance training. RCTs either used one type of training paradigm (type 2: n = 1, type 3: n = 3) or combined different types of training paradigms within their intervention (type 1 and 2: n = 2; all types: n = 2). The meta-analyses revealed significant overall effects of WS training on static steady-state balance outcomes including mediolateral (eyes open: Hedges' g = 0.82, CI: 0.43-1.21; eyes closed: g = 0.57, CI: 0.14-0.99) and anterior-posterior sway (eyes open: g = 0.55, CI: 0.01-1.10; eyes closed: g = 0.44, CI: 0.02-0.86). No effects on habitual gait speed were found in the meta-analysis (g = -0.19, CI: -0.68 to 0.29). Two RCTs reported significant improvements for selected gait variables including single support time, and fast gait speed. One study identified effects on proactive balance (Alternate Step Test), but no effects were found for the Timed Up and Go test and the Berg Balance Scale. Two studies reported positive results on feasibility and usability. Only one study was performed in an unsupervised setting. Conclusion: This review provides evidence for a positive effect of WS training on static steady-state balance in studies with usual care controls and studies with conventional balance training controls. Specific gait parameters and proactive balance measures may also be improved by WS training, yet limited evidence is available. Heterogeneous training paradigms, small sample sizes, and short intervention durations limit the validity of our findings. Larger studies are required for estimating the true potential of WS technology.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Horlings CG, Carpenter MG, Honegger F, Allum JH: Vestibular and proprioceptive contributions to human balance corrections: aiding these with prosthetic feedback. Ann NY Acad Sci 2009;1164:1-12.
  2. Laughton CA, Slavin M, Katdare K, Nolan L, Bean JF, Kerrigan DC, Phillips E, Lipsitz LA, Collins JJ: Aging, muscle activity, and balance control: physiologic changes associated with balance impairment. Gait Posture 2003;18:101-108.
  3. Cadore EL, Rodriguez-Manas L, Sinclair A, Izquierdo M: Effects of different exercise interventions on risk of falls, gait ability, and balance in physically frail older adults: a systematic review. Rejuv Res 2013;16:105-114.
  4. Inness EL, Howe J-A, Niechwiej-Szwedo E, Jaglal SB, McIlroy WE, Verrier MC: Measuring balance and mobility after traumatic brain injury: validation of the community balance and mobility scale (CB&M). Physiother Can 2011;63:199-208.
  5. Chou CH, Hwang CL, Wu YT: Effect of exercise on physical function, daily living activities, and quality of life in the frail older adults: a meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:237-244.
  6. Baram Y: Virtual sensory feedback for gait improvement in neurological patients. Front Neurol 2013;4:138.
  7. Horak F, King L, Mancini M: Role of body-worn movement monitor technology for balance and gait rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2015;95:461-470.
  8. Ma CZ, Wong DW, Lam WK, Wan AH, Lee WC: Balance improvement effects of biofeedback systems with state-of-the-art wearable sensors: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 2016;16:434.
  9. Patel S, Park H, Bonato P, Chan L, Rodgers M: A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012;9:21.
  10. Tao W, Liu T, Zheng R, Feng H: Gait analysis using wearable sensors. Sensors 2012;12:2255-2283.
  11. Najafi B, Grewal G, Lee-Eng J, Talal TK, Menzies RA, Armstrong DG: Game-Based Guided Exercise: Using an Avatar with Real-Time Feedback to Improve Postural Stability in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy. San Francisco, American Diabetes Association, 2014.
  12. Zijlstra A, Mancini M, Chiari L, Zijlstra W: Biofeedback for training balance and mobility tasks in older populations: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2010;7:58.
  13. Wulf G: Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. Beweg Train 2007;1:1-11.
  14. Schwenk M, Grewal GS, Honarvar B, Schwenk S, Mohler J, Khalsa DS, Najafi B: Interactive balance training integrating sensor-based visual feedback of movement performance: a pilot study in older adults. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2014;11:164.
  15. Hanneton S: Coaching the Wii. Proc Haptic Audio Visual Environments and Games (HAVE 2009), Milan, November 2009, pp 54-57.
  16. Sprager S, Juric MB: Inertial sensor-based gait recognition: a review. Sensors (Basel) 2015;15:22089-22127.
  17. Canavan PK, Cahalin LP, Lowe S, Fitzpatrick D, Harris M, Plummer-D'Amato P: Managing gait disorders in older persons residing in nursing homes: a review of literature. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10:230-237.
  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (London) 2010;8:336-341.
  19. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M: Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83:713-721.
  20. Hariohm K, Prakash V, Saravankumar J: Quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials published by Indian physiotherapists. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:91-97.
  21. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH: Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
  22. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S: The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:142-148.
  23. Hill KD: A new test of dynamic standing balance for stroke patients: reliability, validity and comparison with healthy elderly. Physiother Can 1996;48:257-262.
  24. Borenstein M, Cooper H, Hedges L, Valentine J: Effect sizes for continuous data; in Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine J (eds): The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, ed 2. New York, Russel Sage, 2009, pp 221-235.
  25. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1988.
  26. Higgins JP, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  27. Ginis P, Nieuwboer A, Dorfman M, Ferrari A, Gazit E, Canning CG, Rocchi L, Chiari L, Hausdorff JM, Mirelman A: Feasibility and effects of home-based smartphone-delivered automated feedback training for gait in people with Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;22:28-34.
  28. Nanhoe-Mahabier W, Allum JH, Pasman EP, Overeem S, Bloem BR: The effects of vibrotactile biofeedback training on trunk sway in Parkinson's disease patients. Parkinsonism Related Disord 2012;18:1017-1021.
  29. Sungkarat S, Fisher BE, Kovindha A: Efficacy of an insole shoe wedge and augmented pressure sensor for gait training in individuals with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:360-369.
  30. Byl N, Zhang W, Coo S, Tomizuka M: Clinical impact of gait training enhanced with visual kinematic biofeedback: patients with Parkinson's disease and patients stable post stroke. Neuropsychologia 2015;79:332-343.
  31. Grewal GS, Schwenk M, Lee-Eng J, Parvaneh S, Bharara M, Menzies RA, Talal TK, Armstrong DG, Najafi B: Sensor-based interactive balance training with visual joint movement feedback for improving postural stability in diabetics with peripheral neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontology 2015;61:567-574.
  32. Schwenk M, Grewal GS, Holloway D, Muchna A, Garland L, Najafi B: Interactive sensor-based balance training in older cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontology 2016;62:553-563.
  33. Lim SB, Horslen BC, Davis JR, Allum JH, Carpenter MG: Benefits of multi-session balance and gait training with multi-modal biofeedback in healthy older adults. Gait Posture 2016;47:10-17.
  34. Lesinski M, Hortobagyi T, Muehlbauer T, Gollhofer A, Granacher U: Effects of balance training on balance performance in healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med (Auckland) 2015;45:1721-1738.
  35. Hattie J, Timperley H: The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77:81-112.
  36. Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Topper AK: A prospective study of postural balance and risk of falling in an ambulatory and independent elderly population. J Gerontol 1994;49:M72-M84.
  37. Rose DJ, Clark S: Can the control of bodily orientation be significantly improved in a group of older adults with a history of falls? J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:275-282.
  38. Shumway-Cook A, Horak FB: Assessing the influence of sensory interaction of balance. Suggestion from the field. Phys Ther 1986;66:1548-1550.
  39. Giboin LS, Gruber M, Kramer A: Task-specificity of balance training. Hum Mov Sci 2015;44:22-31.
  40. Wall C 3rd, Kentala E: Control of sway using vibrotactile feedback of body tilt in patients with moderate and severe postural control deficits. J Vestibul Res 2005;15:313-325.
  41. Gerling KM, Schild J, Masuch M: Exergaming for Elderly: Analyzing Player Experience and Performance. Munich, Oldenbourg Verlag, 2011, p 401.
  42. Shimada H, Obuchi S, Furuna T, Suzuki T: New intervention program for preventing falls among frail elderly people: the effects of perturbed walking exercise using a bilateral separated treadmill. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:493-499.
  43. Sherrington C, Tiedemann A, Fairhall N, Close JC, Lord SR: Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated meta-analysis and best practice recommendations. NSW Public Health Bull 2011;22:78-83.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Regenerative and Technological Section / Systematic Review

Received: March 13, 2017
Accepted: September 13, 2017
Published online: November 01, 2017
Issue release date: December 2017

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 6
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0304-324X (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0003 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GER


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.