From: Utilization of wearable technology to assess gait and mobility post-stroke: a systematic review
Article | Age mean ± SD (years) | Sample size | Sex (% female) | Time Post-Strokeb | CVA (% right hemisphere) | Assistive device use (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dorsch et al. [51] | C: 65.0 ± 13.2 I: 61.8 ± 15.7 | C: 73 I: 78 | C: 38% I: 40% | Acute/Subacute | C: 41% I: 44% | NR |
Mansfield et al. [36] | C: 61.5 ± 13a I: 64 ± 19a | C: 28 I: 29 | C: 43% I: 31% | Subacute | C: 46% (bilateral 7%) I: 38% (bilateral 7%) | Cane–C: 18%; I: 17% Rollator or wheeled walker–C: 54%; I: 52% Multiple–C: 11%; I: 3% |
English et al. [52] | C: 67.8 ± 13.8 I: 65.4 ± 12.3 | C: 14 I: 19 | C: 36% I: 32% | Chronic | NR | Walking stick–C: 29%; I: 26% Frame–C: 7%; I: 5% |
Givon et al. [53] | C: 62.0 ± 9.3 I: 56.7 ± 9.3 | C: 23 I: 24 | C: 29% I: 52% | Chronic | C: 67% I: 61% | NR |
Danks et al. [54] | C: 58.2 ± 12.4 I: 59.1 ± 8.7 | C: 14 I: 13 | C: 43% I: 46% | Chronic | C: 36% I: 46% | NR |
Kanai et al. [55] | C: 62.9 ± 9.1 I: 66.8 ± 10.0 | C: 25 I: 23 | C: 48% I: 35% | Acute/Subacute | C: 44% I: 39% (bilateral 4%) | NR |
Prajapati et al. [56] | 59.7 ± 15.3 | 16 | 25% | Subacute | NR | Single-point cane (50% for lab gait assessment; 25% daily use) Rollator (6% for lab assessment; 19% daily use) |
Taraldsen et al. [42] | C: 46.3 ± 9.0 I: 75.2 ± 6.2 | C: 10 I: 14 | C: 100% I: 50% | Acute | NR | NR |
Tramontano et al. [57] | 68.7 ± 7.1 | 20 | 30% | Subacute | 50% | None |
Wang et al. [58] | 63.9 ± 8.8 | 18 | 33% | Not clear (only year of diagnosis provided) | 33% (bilateral 17%) | NR |
Seo et al. [59] | NR | 10 | NR | Chronic | NR | None |
Paul et al. [60] | C: 55.3 ± 12.6 I: 56.3 ± 8.7 | C: 8 I: 15 | C: 50% I: 53% | Chronic | C: 37% I: 53% | Walking aid–C: 38%; I: 47% Walking stick–C: 38%; I: 27% Elbow crutch(s)–I: 20% |
Shin et al. [61] | 55.8 | 6 | 17% | Subacute | 50% | All 6 participants used assistive devices, but which type not specified |