Friday, July 17, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015
[World Report] Russia's war on drugs leaves patients without pain relief
from The Lancet http://ift.tt/1I7jdc3
via IFTTT
Kinect-Based Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test for Clinical and In-Home Assessment of Fall Risk in Older People.
 |
Related Articles |
Kinect-Based Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test for Clinical and In-Home Assessment of Fall Risk in Older People.
Gerontology. 2015 May 28;
Authors: Ejupi A, Brodie M, Gschwind YJ, Lord SR, Zagler WL, Delbaere K
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accidental falls remain an important problem in older people. The five-times-sit-to-stand (5STS) test is commonly used as a functional test to assess fall risk. Recent advances in sensor technologies hold great promise for more objective and accurate assessments.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were: (1) to examine the feasibility of a low-cost and portable Kinect-based 5STS test to discriminate between fallers and nonfallers and (2) to investigate whether this test can be used for supervised clinical, supervised and unsupervised in-home fall risk assessments.
METHODS: A total of 94 community-dwelling older adults were assessed by the Kinect-based 5STS test in the laboratory and 20 participants were tested in their own homes. An algorithm was developed to automatically calculate timing- and speed-related measurements from the Kinect-based sensor data to discriminate between fallers and nonfallers. The associations of these measurements with standard clinical fall risk tests and the results of supervised and unsupervised in-home assessments were examined.
RESULTS: Fallers were significantly slower than nonfallers on Kinect-based measures. The mean velocity of the sit-to-stand transitions discriminated well between the fallers and nonfallers based on 12-month retrospective fall data. The Kinect-based measures collected in the laboratory correlated strongly with those collected in the supervised (r = 0.704-0.832) and unsupervised (r = 0.775-0.931) in-home assessments.
CONCLUSION: In summary, we found that the Kinect-based 5STS test discriminated well between the fallers and nonfallers and was feasible to administer in clinical and supervised in-home settings. This test may be useful in clinical settings for identifying high-risk fallers for further intervention or for regular in-home assessments in the future. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PMID: 26021781 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Comparison between low-cost marker-less and high-end marker-based motion capture systems for the computer-aided assessment of working ergonomics.
| Related Articles |
Comparison between low-cost marker-less and high-end marker-based motion capture systems for the computer-aided assessment of working ergonomics.
Ergonomics. 2015 Jun 4;:1-11
Authors: Patrizi A, Pennestrì E, Valentini PP
Abstract
The paper deals with the comparison between a high-end marker-based acquisition system and a low-cost marker-less methodology for the assessment of the human posture during working tasks. The low-cost methodology is based on the use of a single Microsoft Kinect V1 device. The high-end acquisition system is the BTS SMART that requires the use of reflective markers to be placed on the subject's body. Three practical working activities involving object lifting and displacement have been investigated. The operational risk has been evaluated according to the lifting equation proposed by the American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The results of the study show that the risk multipliers computed from the two acquisition methodologies are very close for all the analysed activities. In agreement to this outcome, the marker-less methodology based on the Microsoft Kinect V1 device seems very promising to promote the dissemination of computer-aided assessment of ergonomics while maintaining a good accuracy and affordable costs.
PMID: 26043178 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Motion Tracker: Camera-Based Monitoring of Bodily Movements Using Motion Silhouettes.
  |
Related Articles |
Motion Tracker: Camera-Based Monitoring of Bodily Movements Using Motion Silhouettes.
PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130293
Authors: Westlund JK, D'Mello SK, Olney AM
Abstract
Researchers in the cognitive and affective sciences investigate how thoughts and feelings are reflected in the bodily response systems including peripheral physiology, facial features, and body movements. One specific question along this line of research is how cognition and affect are manifested in the dynamics of general body movements. Progress in this area can be accelerated by inexpensive, non-intrusive, portable, scalable, and easy to calibrate movement tracking systems. Towards this end, this paper presents and validates Motion Tracker, a simple yet effective software program that uses established computer vision techniques to estimate the amount a person moves from a video of the person engaged in a task (available for download from http://ift.tt/1Jlj7It). The system works with any commercially available camera and with existing videos, thereby affording inexpensive, non-intrusive, and potentially portable and scalable estimation of body movement. Strong between-subject correlations were obtained between Motion Tracker's estimates of movement and body movements recorded from the seat (r =.720) and back (r = .695 for participants with higher back movement) of a chair affixed with pressure-sensors while completing a 32-minute computerized task (Study 1). Within-subject cross-correlations were also strong for both the seat (r =.606) and back (r = .507). In Study 2, between-subject correlations between Motion Tracker's movement estimates and movements recorded from an accelerometer worn on the wrist were also strong (rs = .801, .679, and .681) while people performed three brief actions (e.g., waving). Finally, in Study 3 the within-subject cross-correlation was high (r = .855) when Motion Tracker's estimates were correlated with the movement of a person's head as tracked with a Kinect while the person was seated at a desk (Study 3). Best-practice recommendations, limitations, and planned extensions of the system are discussed.
PMID: 26086771 [PubMed - in process]
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Glenohumeral Joint Pain Referral Patterns: A Descriptive Study
Abstract
Background
Pain diagrams are a useful tool to help physicians understand the varying presentation patterns of specific pain generators. This study is the first to describe the potential pain patterns of the glenohumeral joint (GHJ) based on responses to diagnostic image-guided GHJ injections.
Purpose
To determine potential GHJ pain referral patterns.
Methods
162 consecutive patients undergoing 168 GHJ injections recorded their preprocedure pain scores and drew accurate pain diagrams prior to undergoing fluoroscopically guided GHJ injections with local anesthetic. Postprocedure pain scores were recorded and those with complete relief were considered responders. Pain diagrams were overlaid via computer software to facilitate analysis and a composite pain map. A responder composite was also compared with a nonresponder composite.
Results
The GHJ was shown to cause pain in traditionally localized areas of the anterior and/or posterior shoulder and upper arm regions in 100% of patients who experienced complete pain relief after injection. Among 100% responders, 18% had neck pain and 6% had scapular pain. Pain was shown to radiate distally, with anterior forearm pain in 9%, posterior forearm pain in 8%, and hand pain in 9%. No patients with pain both in the medial neck and below the elbow were found to be 100% responders. Similarly, no patients were 100% responders if they had pain in the medial scapula and below the elbow, or medial scapula and medial neck.
Conclusions
Anterior or posterior shoulder and upper arm pain, or a combination of the two, is the most common pain referral area from a symptomatic shoulder joint. Referral to the lateral neck, in combination with shoulder pain, was occasionally seen. Pain referral to the forearm and hand was less common. Rarely did a symptomatic shoulder joint refer pain to the scapula or to the medial neck.
from Pain Medicine http://ift.tt/1fKZ1QQ
via IFTTT
Differences in Neural Mechanosensitivity Between Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain With and Without Neuropathic Features. A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
Objective
To assess differences in neural mechanosensitivity between patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain with and without neuropathic features (NF and No-NF, respectively).
Design
Descriptive, cross-sectional study.
Setting
A primary care center, a hospital physiotherapy outpatient department, and a university campus.
Subjects
Chronic nonspecific neck pain patients classified by the self-completed leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs pain scale (S-LANSS; 49 patients with NF [S-LANSS ≥ 12] and 50 patients with No-NF [S-LANSS < 12]) and a healthy control group (n = 48).
Methods
The primary measurements were the mechanosensitivity of the median nerve and cervical region, specifically the assessment of the onset of symptoms and submaximal pain intensity according to the upper limb neural test 1 (ULNT1) for the median nerve and the modified passive neck flexion test (MPNFT) for the cervical region; secondary measurements included pain intensity, neck disability, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing.
Results
Statistically significant differences between the NF and No-NF groups were found with respect to the onset of symptoms of ULNT1 (−15.11 [−23.19 to −7.03]) and MPNFT (−6.58 [−11.54 to −1.62]), as well as the outcomes of the visual analogue scale (Mean difference [95% Confidence Interval]; 7.12 [1.81–12.42]) and neck disability index (3.72 [1.72–5.71]). Both chronic nonspecific neck pain groups showed statistically significant differences compared with the control group for all outcomes assessed (P < 0.01) except for the onset of symptoms of ULNT1 in the No-NF group.
Conclusions
The findings of this study suggest that chronic nonspecific neck pain patients with NF have greater neural mechanosensitivity, pain intensity, and neck disability than those with No-NF.
from Pain Medicine http://ift.tt/1HPGjxe
via IFTTT