ArticleScientific reports2024
Accuracy and reliability of accelerometer-based pedometers in step counts during walking, running, and stair climbing in different locations of attachment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Novel Technology and the Internet of Medical Things.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- The Challenge of Measuring Exercise: Advancing Metrological Barriers in Wearable Sensing.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- Analytical and clinical validation of step counting method in people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Aggregation Periods Influence Step Count Error in Low-Power Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accurate measurement of simulated slow and altered walking activity: Apple Watch best in class wearable devices.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the accuracy and reliability of accelerometer-based pedometers placed on the wrist, waist, and shoe's midsole during walking, running, and stair climbing. Twenty healthy adults were recruited. Steps were recorded by the pedometers and visually assessed from simultaneously recorded video to evaluate the accuracy of each pedometer in different locations of attachment. One week later, steps were recorded again by the pedometers only to evaluate the reliability of each pedometer in different locations of attachment. The wrist-worn pedometer presented significantly greater error scores compared to the midsole-worn pedometer during walking (p < 0.001), running (p = 0.006), and stair climbing (p = 0.003). Additionally, mean absolute precent error and Bland-Altman plots indicated that the pedometer worn in the midsole was most accurate for running and stair climbing, followed by waist-worn and wrist-worn pedometers. Furthermore, the midsole-worn and waist-worn pedometers showed strong reliability during walking and running, but only the midsole-worn pedometer presented acceptable reliability during stair climbing. The pedometer's position impacts the accuracy and reliability of step counts, especially for walking and stair climbing. Embedding the pedometer into the midsole seems an effective approach to improve the accuracy and reliability of step counts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.