Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 11;23(24):9757.
doi: 10.3390/s23249757.

Validation of the Short Physical Performance Battery via Plantar Pressure Analysis Using Commercial Smart Insoles

Chan Woong Jang  1 , Kyoungmin Park  2 , Min-Chul Paek  1 , Sanghyun Jee  1 , Jung Hyun Park  1   2   3
Affiliations

Validation of the Short Physical Performance Battery via Plantar Pressure Analysis Using Commercial Smart Insoles

Chan Woong Jang et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

This cross-sectional study, conducted at a tertiary care hospital's rehabilitation clinic, aimed to validate Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) results obtained through plantar pressure analysis using commercial smart insoles (SPPB-SI) and to compare these results to manually acquired results by an experienced examiner (SPPB-M). This study included 40 independent-walking inpatients and outpatients aged 50 or older. SPPB-SI and SPPB-M were administered concurrently, with the smart insoles providing plantar pressure data that were converted into time-pressure curves. Two interpreters assessed the curves, determining component completion times for the SPPB-SI scores. Among the 40 participants (mean age: 72.98, SD: 9.27), the mean total SPPB-SI score was 7.72 ± 2.50, and the mean total SPPB-M score was 7.95 ± 2.63. The time recordings and measured scores of each SPPB-SI component exhibited high reliability with inter- and intra-interpreter correlation coefficients of 0.9 and 0.8 or higher, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the total SPPB-SI and SPPB-M scores was 0.831 (p < 0.001), and that between the component scores of the two measurements ranged from 0.837 to 0.901 (p < 0.001). Consistent correlations with geriatric functional parameters were observed for both SPPB-SI and SPPB-M. This study underscores the potential of commercial smart insoles as reliable tools for conducting SPPB assessments.

Keywords: aged; foot orthoses; frailty; physical functional performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure A1
Figure A1
(A) The top of the smart insoles, I-SOL® (Gilon, Seongnam, Republic of Korea), (B) the base, and (C) the layout of the inserted smart insoles.
Figure A2
Figure A2
Bland–Altman plots for intra- and inter-interpreter reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery times measured through plantar pressure graph interpretation using smart insoles. The solid horizontal line represents the mean difference and the dotted lines represent the 95% limits of agreement between the two measurements. (A) The balance (Balance), (B) gait speed (GS), and (C) five chair stand (FCST) tests.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of the plantar pressure graphs for the Short Physical Performance Battery. (A) The balance, (B) gait speed, and (C) five chair stand tests.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplots with jitters and linear fitted lines, including 95% confidence intervals, for the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores manually measured using a stopwatch (M) and smart insoles (SI). (A) The total SPPB, (B) balance (Balance), (C) gait speed (GS), and (D) five chair stand (FCST) scores.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Guralnik J.M., Simonsick E.M., Ferrucci L., Glynn R.J., Berkman L.F., Blazer D.G., Scherr P.A., Wallace R.B. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J. Gerontol. 1994;49:M85–M94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.M85. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cruz-Jentoft A.J., Bahat G., Bauer J., Boirie Y., Bruyère O., Cederholm T., Cooper C., Landi F., Rolland Y., Sayer A.A., et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48:16–31. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy169. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen L.K., Woo J., Assantachai P., Auyeung T.W., Chou M.Y., Iijima K., Jang H.C., Kang L., Kim M., Kim S., et al. Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 Consensus Update on Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Treatment. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2020;21:300–307.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.12.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bruyère O., Buckinx F., Beaudart C., Reginster J.Y., Bauer J., Cederholm T., Cherubini A., Cooper C., Cruz-Jentoft A.J., Landi F., et al. How clinical practitioners assess frailty in their daily practice: An international survey. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017;29:905–912. doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0806-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ronai P., Gallo P.M. The short physical performance battery (assessment) ACSM’s Health Fit. J. 2019;23:52–56. doi: 10.1249/FIT.0000000000000519. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources