| Title |
Smartphone Applications to Perform Body Balance Assessment: a Standardized Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-018-0970-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jose A. Moral-Munoz, Bernabe Esteban-Moreno, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Manuel J. Cobo, Ignacio J. Pérez |
| Abstract |
Body balance disorders are related to different injuries that contribute to a wide range of healthcare issues. The social and financial costs of these conditions are high. Therefore, quick and reliable body balance assessment can contribute to the prevention of injuries, as well as enhancement of clinical rehabilitation. Moreover, the use of smartphone applications is increasing rapidly since they incorporate different hardware components that allow for body balance assessment. The present study aims to show an analysis of the current applications available on Google Play StoreTM and iTunes App StoreTM to measure this physical condition, using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Three iOS and two Android applications met the inclusion criteria. Three applications have scientific support, Balance test YMED, Balance Test by Slani, and Sway. Furthermore, according to MARS, the main scores for each evaluated domain were: Engagement (2.04), Functionality (3.8), Esthetics (3.53), and Information (3.80). The reviewed applications targeted to assess body balance obtained good mean scores. Sway is the app with highest scores in each MARS domain, followed by iBalance Fitness and Gyrobalance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#12,800,207
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#465
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,674
of 331,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.