Background Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. Results A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration CRD42021235527.

Background: Although use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widespread, the underlying reasons patients choose CAM are not clearly understood. Several explanatory models have been suggested, including desire for personal control, compatibility with holistic beliefs, and dissatisfaction with conventional care. Methods: The relationship between CAM use and health functional status, desire for personal control over health, holistic beliefs, spirituality, and patient satisfaction were assessed in a mailed survey of 230 family practice outpatients using validated, multi-item measures. Patients with osteoarthritis, depression, or both were compared to healthy patients. Results: Holistic health beliefs, higher spirituality scores, and lower health functional status were predictive of more CAM use. Personal control over health and satisfaction with physicians were not. Conclusion: Patients use CAM when it is consistent with their worldview and conventional care is not relieving their symptoms.

Introduction: Gait impairment occurs across the spectrum of traumatic brain injury (TBI); from mild (mTBI) to moderate (modTBI), to severe (sevTBI). Recent evidence suggests that objective gait assessment may be a surrogate marker for neurological impairment such as TBI. However, the most optimal method of objective gait assessment is still not well understood due to previous reliance on subjective assessment approaches. The purpose of this review was to examine objective assessment of gait impairments across the spectrum of TBI. Methods: PubMed, AMED, OVID and CINAHL databases were searched with a search strategy containing key search terms for TBI and gait. Original research articles reporting gait outcomes in adults with TBI (mTBI, modTBI, sevTBI) were included. Results: 156 citations were identified from the search, of these, 13 studies met the initial criteria and were included into the review. The findings from the reviewed studies suggest that gait is impaired in mTBI, modTBI and sevTBI (in acute and chronic stages), but methodological limitations were evident within all studies. Inertial measurement units were most used to assess gait, with single-task, dual-task and obstacle crossing conditions used. No studies examined gait across the full spectrum of TBI and all studies differed in their gait assessment protocols. Recommendations for future studies are provided. Conclusion: Gait was found to be impaired in TBI within the reviewed studies regardless of severity level (mTBI, modTBI, sevTBI), but methodological limitations of studies (transparency and reproducibility) limit clinical application. Further research is required to establish a standardised gait assessment procedure to fully determine gait impairment across the spectrum of TBI with comprehensive outcomes and consistent protocols.

Objectives : Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused enormous strain on health-care systems worldwide. Early recognition of prognostic markers and appropriate management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) remains a major global health concern, particularly when resources are limited. We undertook a study to see if basic tests can inform frontline clinicians of disease trajectory in individual patients with COVID-19. Methods : We retrospectively assessed characteristics of the first 50 consecutive patients admitted to district general hospital in the United Kingdom with positive SARS-Cov-2 RNA swabs. Results : Our patient cohort shared broad similarities with previously published data on comorbidities and presenting features. We have found that chest radiographic assessment differed between survivors and non-survivors. Air space shadowing in middle zones were more prevalent in non-survivors (73.3% vs. 35.5% [p = 0.027]). Chest radiograph severity score was also found to be higher in non-survivors compared to survivors (3 vs. 1.5 [p = 0.007]). Conclusions : In this small retrospective study, our results suggest features of chest radiographs at presentation may provide a helpful tool for prognostication. In environments with constrained computed tomography (CT) imaging with serial chest radiographs could be a cost-effective tool in the assessment of Covid-19 patients.

Gait assessment is essential to understand injury prevention mechanisms during running, where high-impact forces can lead to a range of injuries in the lower extremities. Information regarding the running style to increase efficiency and/or selection of the correct running equipment, such as shoe type, can minimize the risk of injury, e.g., matching a runner's gait to a particular set of cushioning technologies found in modern shoes (neutral/support cushioning). Awareness of training or selection of the correct equipment requires an understanding of a runner's biomechanics, such as determining foot orientation when it strikes the ground. Previous work involved a low-cost approach with a foot-mounted inertial measurement unit (IMU) and an associated zero-crossing-based methodology to objectively understand a runner's biomechanics (in any setting) to learn about shoe selection. Here, an investigation of the previously presented ZC-based methodology is presented only to determine general validity for running gait assessment in a range of running abilities from novice (8 km/h) to experienced (16 km/h+). In comparison to Vicon 3D motion tracking data, the presented approach can extract pronation, foot strike location, and ground contact time with good [ICC(2,1) > 0.750] to excellent [ICC(2,1) > 0.900] agreement between 8–12 km/h runs. However, at higher speeds (14 km/h+), the ZC-based approach begins to deteriorate in performance, suggesting that other features and approaches may be more suitable for faster running and sprinting tasks.