Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 783–818 | Cite as

Reliability, Validity and Utility of Inertial Sensor Systems for Postural Control Assessment in Sport Science and Medicine Applications: A Systematic Review

  • William JohnstonEmail author
  • Martin O’Reilly
  • Rob Argent
  • Brian Caulfield
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Recent advances in mobile sensing and computing technology have provided a means to objectively and unobtrusively quantify postural control. This has resulted in the rapid development and evaluation of a series of wearable inertial sensor-based assessments. However, the validity, reliability and clinical utility of such systems is not fully understood.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to synthesise and evaluate studies that have investigated the ability of wearable inertial sensor systems to validly and reliably quantify postural control performance in sports science and medicine applications.

Methods

A systematic search strategy utilising the PRISMA guidelines was employed to identify eligible articles through ScienceDirect, Embase and PubMed databases. In total, 47 articles met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated and qualitatively synthesised under two main headings: measurement validity and measurement reliability. Furthermore, studies that investigated the utility of these systems in clinical populations were summarised and discussed.

Results

After duplicate removal, 4374 articles were identified with the search strategy, with 47 papers included in the final review. In total, 28 studies investigated validity in healthy populations, and 15 studies investigated validity in clinical populations; 13 investigated the measurement reliability of these sensor-based systems.

Conclusions

The application of wearable inertial sensors for sports science and medicine postural control applications is an evolving field. To date, research has primarily focused on evaluating the validity and reliability of a heterogeneous set of assessment protocols, in a laboratory environment. While researchers have begun to investigate their utility in clinical use cases such as concussion and musculoskeletal injury, most studies have leveraged small sample sizes, are of low quality and use a variety of descriptive variables, assessment protocols and sensor-mounting locations. Future research should evaluate the clinical utility of these systems in large high-quality prospective cohort studies to establish the role they may play in injury risk identification, diagnosis and management. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 10 August 2018 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018106363): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=106363.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

William Johnston and Brian Caulfield were funded by Science Foundation Ireland under their Grant for the Insight Centre for Data Analytics (SFI/12/RC/2289). Martin O’Reilly receives funding from Enterprise Ireland (CF/2017/0739). Rob Argent receives funding under the H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement (no. 676201). These funding bodies had no influence on the data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or approval/disapproval of publication.

Conflict of interest

William Johnston, Martin O’Reilly, Rob Argent and Brian Caulfield have no conflicts of interested relevant to the content of this review.

References

  1. 1.
    Hildebrandt C, Müller L, Zisch B, Huber R, Fink C, Raschner C. Functional assessments for decision-making regarding return to sports following ACL reconstruction. Part I: development of a new test battery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(5):1273–81.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell DR, Guskiewicz KM, Clark MA, Padua DA. Systematic review of the balance error scoring system. Sports Health. 2011;3(3):287–95.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stiffler MR, Bell DR, Sanfilippo JL, Hetzel SJ, Pickett KA, Heiderscheit BC. Star excursion balance test anterior asymmetry is associated with injury status in division I collegiate athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(5):339–46.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Woollacott MH, Tang P-F. Balance control during walking in the older adult: research and its implications. Phys Ther. 1997;77(6):646–60.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yim-Chiplis PK, Talbot LA. Defining and measuring balance in adults. Biol Res Nurs. 2000;1(4):321–31.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnston W, Coughlan GF, Caulfield B. Challenging concussed athletes: the future of balance assessment in concussion. QJM. 2016;110:779–83.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnston W, Doherty C, Büttner FC, Caulfield B. Wearable sensing and mobile devices: the future of post-concussion monitoring? Concussion (London, England). 2017;2(1):CNC28.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Reilly M, Caulfield B, Ward T, Johnston W, Doherty C. Wearable inertial sensor systems for lower limb exercise detection and evaluation: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48(5):1–26.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giggins O, Sweeney KT, Caulfield B. The use of inertial sensors for the classification of rehabilitation exercises. IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:2965–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene BR, Redmond SJ, Caulfield B. Fall risk assessment through automatic combination of clinical fall risk factors and body-worn sensor data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017;21(3):725–31.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pantall A, Din SD, Rochester L. Longitudinal changes over thirty-six months in postural control dynamics and cognitive function in people with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture. 2018;62:468–74.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alberts JL, Thota A, Hirsch J, Ozinga S, Dey T, Schindler DD, Koop MM, Burke D, Linder SM. Quantification of the balance error scoring system with mobile technology. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(10):2233–40.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown HJ, Siegmund GP, Guskiewicz KM, Van Den Doel K, Cretu EB. Development and validation of an objective balance error scoring system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(8):1610–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Furman GR, Lin CC, Bellanca JL, Marchetti GF, Collins MW, Whitney SL. Comparison of the balance accelerometer measure and balance error scoring system in adolescent concussions in sports. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1404–10.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    King LA, Horak FB, Mancini M, et al. Instrumenting the balance error scoring system for use with patients reporting persistent balance problems after mild traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):353–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simon M, Maerlender A, Metzger K, Decoster L, Hollingworth A, McLeod Valovich T. Reliability and concurrent validity of select C3 logix test components. Dev Neuropsychol. 2017;42(7–8):446–59.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linder SM, Ozinga SJ, Koop MM, et al. Cleveland clinic-postural stability index norms for the balance error scoring system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hubble RP, Naughton GA, Silburn PA, Cole MH. Wearable sensor use for assessing standing balance and walking stability in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123705.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordt K, Gerhardy T, Najafi B, Schwenk M. 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. Gerontology. 2018;64(1):74–89.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lipscomb CE. Medical subject headings (MeSH). Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000;88(3):265.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Office UNS. Provisional guidelines on standard international age classifications. New York: United Nations; 1982.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher ST. The intra-session and inter-session reliability of centre-of-pressure based measures of postural sway within a normal population. Auckland: UNITEC Institute of Technology; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah N, Aleong R, So I. Novel use of a smartphone to measure standing balance. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;3(1):e4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alberts JL, Hirsch JR, Koop MM, et al. Using accelerometer and gyroscopic measures to quantify postural stability. J Athl Train. 2015;50(6):578–88.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burghart M, Craig J, Radel J, Huisinga J. Reliability and validity of a mobile device application for use in sports-related concussion balance assessment. Curr Res Concussion. 2017;4(1):e1–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heebner NR, Akins JS, Lephart SM, Sell TC. Reliability and validity of an accelerometry based measure of static and dynamic postural stability in healthy and active individuals. Gait Posture. 2015;41(2):535–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neville C, Ludlow C, Rieger B. Measuring postural stability with an inertial sensor: validity and sensitivity. Med Devices (Auckl). 2015;8:447–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patterson JA, Amick RZ, Thummar T, Rogers ME. Validation of measures from the smartphone sway balance application: a pilot study. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(2):135–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rouis A, Rezzoug N, Gorce P. Validity of a low-cost wearable device for body sway parameter evaluation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 2014;17(Suppl 1):182–3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seimetz C, Tan D, Katayama R, Lockhart T. A comparison between methods of measuring postrual stability: force plates versus accelerometers. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2012;48:386–92.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whitney SL, Roche JL, Marchetti GF, et al. A comparison of accelerometry and center of pressure measures during computerized dynamic posturography: a measure of balance. Gait Posture. 2011;33(4):594–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dabbs NC, Sauls NM, Zayer A, Chander H. Balance performance in collegiate athletes: a comparison of balance error scoring system measures. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2017;2(3):26.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mohamed ME, Abd-Elraouf NA, Ayad KE, Abu-Taleb EE. Validity of using smart phone sway balance application in measuring dynamic balance. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;6(4):31–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abe Y, Sakamoto M, Nakazawa R, Shirakura K. Relationship between joint motion and acceleration during single-leg standing in healthy male adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(4):1251–6.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Betker AL, Moussavi ZMK, Szturm T. Center of mass approximation and prediction as a function of body acceleration. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006;53(4):686–93.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim KJ, Agrawal V, Bennett C, Gaunaurd I, Feigenbaum L, Gailey R. Measurement of lower limb segmental excursion using inertial sensors during single limb stance. J Biomech. 2018;71(11):151–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kosse NM, Caljouw S, Vervoort D, Vuillerme N, Lamoth CJ. Validity and reliability of gait and postural control analysis using the tri-axial accelerometer of the iPod touch. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(8):1935–46.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salisbury JP, Keshav NU, Sossong AD, Sahin NT. Concussion assessment with smartglasses: validation study of balance measurement toward a lightweight, multimodal, field-ready platform. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6(1):e15.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Patterson JA, Amick RZ, Pandya PD, Hakansson N, Jorgensen MJ. Comparison of a mobile technology application with the balance error scoring system. Int J Athl Ther Train. 2014;19(3):4–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bonnet S, Couturier P, Favre-Reguillon F, Guillemaud R. Evaluation of postural stability by means of a single inertial sensor. IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;3:2275–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chiu YL, Tsai YJ, Lin CH, Hou YR, Sung WH. Evaluation of a smartphone-based assessment system in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017;139:191–5.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnston W, O’Reilly M, Coughlan GF, Caulfield B. Inertial sensor technology can capture changes in dynamic balance control during the y balance test. Digit Biomark. 2017;1(2):106–17.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Oliva Dominguez M, Bartual Magro J, Roquette Gaona J, Bartual Pastor J. Spectrum analysis in postural strategy on static tests in a healthy population. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2013;64(2):124–32.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schelldorfer S, Ernst MJ, Rast FM, Bauer CM, Meichtry A, Kool J. Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics. Gait Posture. 2015;41(1):112–8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yvon C, Najuko-Mafemera A, Kanegaonkar R. The D + R balance application: a novel method of assessing postural sway. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(8):773–8.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnston W, O’Reilly M, Dolan K, Reid N, Coughlan G, Caulfield B. Objective classification of dynamic balance using a single wearable sensor. In: 4th international congress on sport sciences research and technology support 2016, Porto, Portugal, 7–9 November 2016. p. 15–24.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Budini K, Richards J, Cole T, et al. An exploration of the use of inertial measurement units in the assessment of dynamic postural control of the knee and the effect of bracing and taping. Physiother Pract Res. 2018;39(2):91–8.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Berkner J, Meehan WP, Master CL, Howell DR. Gait and quiet-stance performance among adolescents after concussion-symptom resolution. J Athl Train. 2017;52(12):1089–95.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Borges A, Raab S, Lininger M. A comprehensive instrument for evaluating mild truamatic brain injury (MTBI)/concussion in independent adults: a pilot study. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(3):381–9.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Doherty C, Zhao L, Ryan J, Komaba Y, Inomata A, Caulfield B. Quantification of postural control deficits in patients with recent concussion: an inertial-sensor based approach. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017;42:79–84.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    King LA, Mancini M, Fino PC, et al. Sensor-based balance measures outperform modified balance error scoring system in identifying acute concussion. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(9):2135–45.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Baracks J, Casa DJ, Covassin T, et al. Acute sport-related concussion screening for collegiate athletes using an instrumented balance assessment. J Athl Train. 2018;53(6):174–7.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gera G, Chesnutt J, Mancini M, Horak FB, King LA. Inertial sensor-based assessment of central sensory integration for balance after mild traumatic brain injury. Mil Med. 2018;183(suppl_1):327–32.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bernstein JPK, Calamia M, Pratt J, Mullenix S. Assessing the effects of concussion using the C3Logix test battery: an exploratory study. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1416471.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Brown CN, Mynark R. Balance deficits in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2007;42(3):367–73.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martínez-Ramírez A, Lecumberri P, Gómez M, Izquierdo M. Wavelet analysis based on time-frequency information discriminate chronic ankle instability. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010;25(3):256–64.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Senanayake SM, Malik OA, Iskandar M, Zaheer D. 3-D kinematics and neuromuscular signals’ integration for post ACL reconstruction recovery assessment. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:7221–5.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wilkerson GB, Gupta A, Colston MA. Mitigating sports injury risks using internet of things and analytics approaches. Risk Anal. 2018;38(7):1348–60.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Han S, Lee D, Lee S. A study on the reliability of measuring dynamic balance ability using a smartphone. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(9):2515–8.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Williams JM, Dorey C, Clark S, Clark C. The within-day and between-day reliability of using sacral accelerations to quantify balance performance. Phys Ther Sport. 2016;17:45–50.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Amick RZ, Chaparro A, Patterson JA, Jorgensen MJ. Test–retest reliability of the sway balance mobile application. J MTM. 2015;4(2):40–7.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dunn KL, Bay RC, Cardenas JF, Anastasi M, Williams RM, McLeod TV. Reliability of the sway balance mobile application: a retrospective analysis. Int J Athl Ther Train. 2017;23(2):69–72.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Moe-Nilssen R. A new method for evaluating motor control in gait under real-life environmental conditions. Part 1: the instrument. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1998;13(4–5):320–7.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zijlstra W, Hof AL. Assessment of spatio-temporal gait parameters from trunk accelerations during human walking. Gait Posture. 2003;18(2):1–10.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mitschke C, Kiesewetter P, Milani TL. The effect of the accelerometer operating range on biomechanical parameters: stride length, velocity, and peak tibial acceleration during running. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18(1):130.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stergiou N, Decker LM. Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: is there a connection? Hum Mov Sci. 2011;30(5):869–88.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bravi A, Longtin A, Seely AJ. Review and classification of variability analysis techniques with clinical applications. Biomed Eng Online. 2011;10:10–90.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    McCrory P, Meeuwisse W, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport—the 5th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:838–47.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Broglio SP, Ferrara MS, Sopiarz K, Kelly MS. Reliable change of the sensory organization test. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(2):148–54.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Anderson SL, Gatens D, Glatts C, Russo SA. Normative data set of SWAY balance mobile assessment in pediatric athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000545.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Paniccia M, Wilson KE, Hunt A, et al. Postural stability in healthy child and youth athletes: the effect of age, sex, and concussion-related factors on performance. Sports Health. 2017;10(2):175–82.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Prieto TE, Myklebust JB, Hoffmann RG, Lovett EG, Myklebust BM. Measures of postural steadiness: differences between healthy young and elderly adults. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996;43(9):956–66.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Weir JP. Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26(4):217–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Insight Centre for Data AnalyticsUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.Beacon HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations