Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

| 2016

Biofeedback in Partial Weight Bearing: Validity of 3 Different Devices

Remko van Lieshout, Martijn F. Pisters, Benedicte Vanwanseele, Rob A. de Bie, Eveline J. Wouters, Mirelle J. Stukstette#

Center for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care, Julius Health Care Centers, Utrecht


accuracy, force, orthopaedic, physical therapy, rehabilitation


Study Design Controlled laboratory study to assess criterion-related validity, with a cross-sectional within-subject design. Background Patients with orthopaedic conditions have difficulties complying with partial weight-bearing instructions. Technological advances have resulted in biofeedback devices that offer real-time feedback. However, the accuracy of these devices is mostly unknown. Inaccurate feedback can result in incorrect lower-limb loading and may lead to delayed healing. Objectives To investigate validity of peak force measurements obtained using 3 different biofeedback devices under varying levels of partial weight-bearing categories. Methods Validity of 3 biofeedback devices (OpenGo science, SmartStep, and SensiStep) was assessed. Healthy participants were instructed to walk at a self-selected speed with crutches under 3 different weight-bearing conditions, categorized as a percentage range of body weight: 1% to 20%, greater than 20% to 50%, and greater than 50% to 75%. Peak force data from the biofeedback devices were compared with the peak vertical ground reaction force measured with a force plate. Criterion validity was estimated using simple and regression-based Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement and weighted kappas. Results Fifty-five healthy adults (58% male) participated. Agreement with the gold standard was substantial for the SmartStep, moderate for OpenGo science, and slight for SensiStep (weighted ± = 0.76, 0.58, and 0.19, respectively). For the 1% to 20% and greater than 20% to 50% weight-bearing categories, both the OpenGo science and SmartStep had acceptable limits of agreement. For the weight-bearing category greater than 50% to 75%, none of the devices had acceptable agreement. Conclusion The OpenGo science and SmartStep provided valid feedback in the lower weight-bearing categories, and the SensiStep showed poor validity of feedback in all weight-bearing categories.

Moticon's Summary

Contact Us
Book a free online demo or use the contact form to get in touch
Subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates

Select your desired system

The cutting edge test based outcome assessment system for health professionals and trainers

The most versatile toolkit for free data acquisition and comprehensive analytics in research

Have a general inquiry?

Write us a message for general questions about products and solutions or if you’d like to discuss other topics.

The form was sent successfully.

You will be contacted shortly.


Stay one step ahead!

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest information on case studies, webinars, product updates and company news

Get support

Check our FAQ database for answers to frequently asked questions

Describe your issue in as much detail as possible. Include screenshots or files if applicable.

Need help?
Want a live demo?
Interested in prices?
Want to say hello?
Always just a call away
+49 89 2000 301 60