This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1174) New Methods (901) Wearable Devices and Sensors (811) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1301) mHealth for Data Collection and Research (907) Mobile Health (mhealth) (2748)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/44428, first published .
Wearable Sensor Technologies to Assess Motor Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Scoping Review and Perspective

Wearable Sensor Technologies to Assess Motor Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Scoping Review and Perspective

Wearable Sensor Technologies to Assess Motor Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Scoping Review and Perspective

Authors of this article:

Tim Woelfle1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Lucie Bourguignon3 Author Orcid Image ;   Johannes Lorscheider1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Ludwig Kappos1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Yvonne Naegelin1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Catherine Ruth Jutzeler3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (12) Tweetations (17) Metrics

    Review

    1Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    2Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    3Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Catherine Ruth Jutzeler, Prof Dr

    Department of Health Sciences and Technology

    ETH Zurich

    Lengghalde 2

    Zürich, 8008

    Switzerland

    Phone: 41 044 344 99 50

    Email: catherine.jutzeler@hest.ethz.ch


    Background: Wearable sensor technologies have the potential to improve monitoring in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and inform timely disease management decisions. Evidence of the utility of wearable sensor technologies in people with MS is accumulating but is generally limited to specific subgroups of patients, clinical or laboratory settings, and functional domains.

    Objective: This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of all studies that have used wearable sensors to assess, monitor, and quantify motor function in people with MS during daily activities or in a controlled laboratory setting and to shed light on the technological advances over the past decades.

    Methods: We systematically reviewed studies on wearable sensors to assess the motor performance of people with MS. We scanned PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases until December 31, 2022, considering search terms “multiple sclerosis” and those associated with wearable technologies and included all studies assessing motor functions. The types of results from relevant studies were systematically mapped into 9 predefined categories (association with clinical scores or other measures; test-retest reliability; group differences, 3 types; responsiveness to change or intervention; and acceptability to study participants), and the reporting quality was determined through 9 questions. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines.

    Results: Of the 1251 identified publications, 308 were included: 176 (57.1%) in a real-world context, 107 (34.7%) in a laboratory context, and 25 (8.1%) in a mixed context. Most publications studied physical activity (196/308, 63.6%), followed by gait (81/308, 26.3%), dexterity or tremor (38/308, 12.3%), and balance (34/308, 11%). In the laboratory setting, outcome measures included (in addition to clinical severity scores) 2- and 6-minute walking tests, timed 25-foot walking test, timed up and go, stair climbing, balance tests, and finger-to-nose test, among others. The most popular anatomical landmarks for wearable placement were the waist, wrist, and lower back. Triaxial accelerometers were most commonly used (229/308, 74.4%). A surge in the number of sensors embedded in smartphones and smartwatches has been observed. Overall, the reporting quality was good.

    Conclusions: Continuous monitoring with wearable sensors could optimize the management of people with MS, but some hurdles still exist to full clinical adoption of digital monitoring. Despite a possible publication bias and vast heterogeneity in the outcomes reported, our review provides an overview of the current literature on wearable sensor technologies used for people with MS and highlights shortcomings, such as the lack of harmonization, transparency in reporting methods and results, and limited data availability for the research community. These limitations need to be addressed for the growing implementation of wearable sensor technologies in clinical routine and clinical trials, which is of utmost importance for further progress in clinical research and daily management of people with MS.

    Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021243249; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=243249

    J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e44428

    doi:10.2196/44428

    Keywords

    multiple sclerosis; digital biomarkers; digital health technologies; digital mobility outcomes; wearables; sensors; inertial motion unit; accelerometry; actigraphy; review 


    Background

    Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and degenerative demyelinating disease of the central nervous system that can lead to a wide range of sensorimotor, cognitive, visual, and autonomic function symptoms [1]. As the disease progresses, these symptoms become more prominent, impede the performance of activities of daily living, and reduce the quality of life considerably [2]. Approved disease-modifying therapies reduce the risk of relapse and may slow down progression but do not cure MS [3]. The course of MS on an individual basis remains largely unpredictable with substantial clinical heterogeneity. Given the increasing number of therapeutic choices, close monitoring of the disease course and development of reliable and sensitive tools to continuously monitor MS symptoms and to detect both progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening are of paramount importance for disease management [4]. Conventional MS outcome measures are usually assessed episodically and only provide snapshots of the disease course. Intermittent in-clinic monitoring is limited in detecting fluctuations of symptoms, particularly comorbidities and fatigue [5,6].

    Recent advances in wearable sensors and digital health technologies [7] may enable individualized and quasicontinuous remote monitoring of motor functions in both real-world and controlled laboratory settings, potentially benefiting both clinical routine and clinical trials [8]. Different types of sensors (eg, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers) are embedded into different types of wearables (eg, motion trackers, inertial measurement units, smartwatches, or smartphones). These sensors have been used extensively to assess physical activity and ambulation in people with MS [9-12]. Other promising applications of wearable sensor technologies in the area of MS include the assessment of gait [13-15], balance and postural control [16,17], and dexterity and tremor [18].

    Sensor data are collected either through passive monitoring (wearing the device in normal everyday life) or through active tests (performed at defined time points) and are transformed into metrics (so-called features) by designated algorithms. For example, physical activity is often measured passively using features such as “step count per day” or “distance walked per day.” Such features are classified as digital measures, defined as objective quantifiable measures of physiology measured using digital tools [19]. Sensor technologies and their digital measures must undergo a thorough process of verification and analytical and clinical validation before they can be safely deployed as digital biomarkers, especially in the context of clinical trials [7,19-22]. Commercial activity trackers or “general purpose computing platforms” (eg, smartwatches or smartphones) can be used as long as they are carefully shown to be fit for purpose—they need not necessarily be approved medical devices [7]. Consequently, commercial wearable sensor technologies are already being used as secondary and primary outcomes in industry-sponsored clinical trials for many indications, including MS [23].

    Objectives

    Considering the rapid progress of and innovations in wearable sensor technologies in the field of MS, it is crucial to collate and critically evaluate state-of-the-art assessments. Thus, the main objective of our review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the different wearable sensor technologies that have been implemented to assess motor function (ie, physical activity, gait, balance, and dexterity or tremor) in people with MS. To this end, we systematically reviewed the literature, mapped different functional domains examined and types of results reported, and performed a reporting quality assessment of the included studies. On the basis of our findings, we provide recommendations for future investigations of wearable sensor technologies as monitoring tools for motor functions in people with MS. Finally, we created an open-access web platform that allows to interactively explore the results of this review in more detail.


    The study protocol was registered with and approved by PROSPERO before the start of the study (CRD42021243249) [24]. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [25] (Multimedia Appendix 1).

    Search Strategy and Selection of Studies

    We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases for the first time on March 22, 2021. We performed a second search on February 19, 2023, limiting publication time from March 22, 2021, to December 31, 2022. Both searches were performed without any language restrictions. The prespecified search terms and inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of the studies are shown in Textbox 1. Abstract review was performed independently by 2 out of 5 investigators (TW, LB, JL, YN, and CRJ). All disagreements were discussed and resolved at a consensus meeting.

    Textbox 1. Prespecified search terms, included article types, and study selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria).

    Databases searched up to December 31, 2022, without language restrictions

    • PubMed
    • Scopus
    • Embase
    • Web of Science

    Search terms

    • "multiple sclerosis" AND ("smartphone" OR "smartphones" OR "smartwatch" OR "smartwatches" OR "wearable" OR "wearables" OR "biosensor" OR "biosensors" OR "digital biomarker" OR "digital biomarkers" OR "accelerometer" OR "accelerometers" OR "accelerometry" OR "gyroscope" OR "gyroscopes" OR "inertial motion unit" OR "IMU")

    Article types

    • Included articles
      • Peer-reviewed conference papers
      • Peer-reviewed journal articles
    • Excluded articles
      • Case reports
      • Commentaries, perspectives, and opinion papers
      • Conference abstracts
      • Patent applications
      • Preprints
      • Reviews and meta-analyses

    Selection criteria

    • Inclusion criteria
      • Studies using mobile or wearable sensor technologies (including smartphone apps)
      • Studies assessing motor function (including physical activity, gait, balance, and dexterity or tremor)
      • Adult and pediatric multiple sclerosis populations
      • Cross-sectional, longitudinal, retrospective, prospective, and controlled studies
    • Exclusion criteria
      • Studies purely using nonwearable technologies (eg, static camera based or instrumented walkways)
      • Studies not assessing motor function (eg, purely neurocognitive or ophthalmologic)
      • Studies without people with multiple sclerosis (eg, animal studies)

    Data Extraction and Synthesis

    Data extraction was distributed among 4 investigators (TW, LB, YN, and CRJ) and performed independently. For each study, we extracted the characteristics of the study population (sample size, sex, age, type of MS, severity, duration, treatment of MS, comorbidities, and type of controls, if applicable), information on sensor technology (name, brand, type of sensors, number, anatomical position, and context [ie, real-world and controlled laboratory setting]), types of results, and assessment of quality. Bibliographic data were retrieved from OpenAlex (OurResearch) to construct the local citation network and coauthorship network of all selected studies [26]. The URLs for the GitHub repository containing all code and data [27], for the interactive Shiny app supporting this study [28], and for the interactive local citation network and coauthorship network of the included studies [29] have been included.

    Systematic Mapping of Types of Results

    We systematically mapped and categorized the results of the studies included. The same investigators who performed the data extraction classified the studies according to the functional domains covered (Textbox 2) and the types of results reported (Table 1). In addition, the significance of statistical tests performed for each applicable result was categorized as “nonsignificant,” “some significant” (mixed results), “significant,” and “significance not tested.” Note that studies can report multiple functional domains and types of results at once and that the 9 types of results are not necessarily exhaustive, meaning that some studies potentially addressed questions not related to any of these types of results.

    Textbox 2. Functional domains covered.

    Physical activity

    • Usually determined by actigraphy or accelerometry (eg, minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per day, activity counts per day, number of steps per day, or estimated distance per day)

    Gait

    • Qualitative gait features, such as walking speed, cadence, swing or stance time, symmetry, joint angles, often determined through (multiple) inertial motion units

    Balance

    • Postural stability (eg, determined through sway in static balance tests or determined through fall detection)

    Dexterity or tremor

    • Ability of upper or lower extremities to perform coordinated movements without tremor
    Table 1. Types of results reported.
    CategoryDescription
    Correlation or association with clinical MSa severity scoresAre digital outcomes (eg, step count and speed) correlated or associated with the disease severity measured by clinical scores (eg, EDSSb or PDDSc)?
    Correlation or association with other measuresAre digital outcomes (eg, step count and speed) correlated or associated with other disease-specific outcomes (eg, 2MWTd, imaging outcomes, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness)?
    Test-retest reliabilityDo digital outcomes reliably report consistent results when tested repeatedly in stable conditions?
    Group difference (MS vs healthy controls)Can digital outcomes distinguish people with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls?
    Group difference (MS vs MS)Can digital outcomes distinguish subgroups of people with multiple sclerosis (eg, fallers vs nonfallers)?
    Group difference (MS vs other diseases)Can digital outcomes distinguish people with multiple sclerosis from participants with other pathologies (eg, Parkinson disease)?
    Responsiveness to change (longitudinal)Are digital outcomes responsive to change (eg, natural disease progression)?
    Responsiveness to interventionAre digital outcomes responsive to interventions (eg, pharmacological intervention or rehabilitation)?
    Subjective participant acceptabilityAre the digital outcomes subjectively meaningful and acceptable to participants?

    aMS: multiple sclerosis.

    bEDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale.

    cPDDS: Patient Determined Disease Steps.

    d2MWT: 2-minute walking test.

    Reporting Quality Assessment

    We assigned scores according to the reporting quality of the included studies based on the presence of the following: (1) a clear research objective (including an outcome); (2) inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) population demographics, including at least age and sex; (4) assessment of MS in terms of type and severity (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] [30] or Patient Determined Disease Steps [PDDS]) [31]; (5) description of sensor technology used in terms of type, positioning, and context in which it was worn (real-world setting and laboratory setting) and recording frequency; (6) reporting of appropriate statistical analysis (eg, corrections for multiple comparisons); (7) a description of the robustness of the results (eg, ways of calculating effect sizes, reporting CIs, and SDs); (8) the availability of data and code used for analyses; and (9) discussion on the limitations of the study. These criteria were readapted from the systematic review by Qiao [32] to match the objectives of this review.

    Each criterion was formulated as a question and scored as “yes,” “partially,” or “no.” For each study, the reporting quality assessment was performed by the author who extracted the data from the previous step. Difficult or ambiguous ratings were discussed within the group, and the final scores for each publication were determined. Publications satisfying all the 9 criteria with “yes” were considered “very good,” publications satisfying 6 to 8 criteria with at least “partially” were considered “good,” and all other publications were considered “substandard.”


    Characteristics of Included Studies

    The search of electronic databases yielded 2778 records of 1251 publications after the removal of duplicates. Abstract screening by 2 investigators identified 349 publications for full-text reviews. The interrater agreement for this selection was substantial (Cohen κ=0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.70; 1078/1251, 86.17% agreement, 173/1251, 13.82% studies with initial disagreement). Of those, the inclusion criteria for this systematic review were met by 88.3% (308/349) of studies (Figure 1) [17,18,31,33-337]. Apart from 1 German study [33], all studies were published in English. The local citation network of all included studies can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2 and the coauthorship network can be found in Multimedia Appendix 3. The URLs for the complementary interactive web apps are included [28,29].

    On average, real-world studies included 63 (IQR 30-143) people with MS, laboratory studies 29 (IQR 17-50), and mixed studies 30 (IQR 25-44). The overall range was from 3 to 1355 people with MS (Table 2). There were 8 studies with ≥500 people with MS, all performed after 2012 (Multimedia Appendix 4). The majority of the studies enrolled ≥50% female individuals with MS (median 76% for real-world studies, IQR 68%-82%, range: 0%-100%), reflecting the higher prevalence of MS among women. In terms of study population, 303 (98.4%) out of 308 studies enrolled adults with MS only, whereas 5 (1.6%) out of 308 focused on pediatric populations [34-38].

    Multimedia Appendices 5-7 ([17,18,31,33-337]) refer to all publications included in our review. The primary context of sensor technology ranged from real-world settings (176/308, 57.1% of studies; Multimedia Appendix 5) to controlled laboratory settings (107/308, 34.7% of studies; Multimedia Appendix 6), or a mixture of both (25/308, 8.1% of studies; Multimedia Appendix 7). While early studies were almost exclusively performed in the real-world setting, the proportion of studies performed in a controlled laboratory or clinical setting has risen over time (Multimedia Appendix 8). In the real-world setting, mostly actigraphy and accelerometry (eg, activity counts, steps, estimated distance per day) were used as a surrogate marker for physical activity, along with self-reported measures or clinical assessments. In the laboratory setting, outcome measures included the 2-minute walking test (2MWT) [39], 6-minute walking test [338], timed 25-foot walking test (T25FW) [339], timed up and go (TUG) [340], stair climbing, balance test (Berg Scale), spasticity test [341], tremor test (Fahn tremor rating scale) [342], and finger-to-nose test [40]. The aim of the mixed setting studies was to characterize motor functions in both real-world and laboratory conditions for a group of participants.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.
    Table 2. Detailed information on all included studies.

    		Real-world setting (n=176)Laboratory setting (n=107)Mixed setting (n=25)
    Population

    		Number of people with multiple sclerosis enrolled, median (IQR; range)63 (30-143; 9-1355)29 (17-50; 3-562)30 (25-44; 10-212)

    		Proportion female (%), median (IQR; range)76 (68-82; 27-93)a69 (61-75; 0-100)b66 (54-80; 25-92)c

    		Average age (years), median (IQR; range)48 (45-51; 16-66)d48 (43-52; 35-63)a49 (47-51; 40-58)
    Type of MS

    		Proportion relapsing-remitting (%), median (IQR; range)83 (68-90; 0-100)e77 (50-99; 0-100)f70 (55-95; 0-100)g

    		Proportion progressive (%), median (IQR; range)11 (0-27; 0-100)e20 (0-44; 0-100)f30 (0-43; 0-100)g
    Study characteristics, n (%)

    		Total number of studies176 (100)107 (100)25 (100)

    		Studies with comparator groups70 (39.8)78 (72.9)12 (48)

    		Healthy controls50 (28.4)66 (61.7)9 (36)

    		Multiple sclerosis controls18 (10.2)9 (8.4)3 (12)

    		Other diseasesh2 (1.1)3 (2.8)0 (0)
    Number of publications per position, n (%)

    		Sternum2 (1.1)22 (20.6)4 (16)

    		Hand1 (0.6)2 (1.9)0 (0)

    		Upper back6 (3.4)43 (40.2)6 (24)

    		Lower back96 (54.5)17 (15.9)11 (44)

    		Waist2 (1.1)5 (4.7)0 (0)

    		Upper arm0 (0)6 (5.6)0 (0)

    		Lower arm27 (15.3)19 (17.8)5 (20)

    		Wrist17 (9.7)8 (7.5)3 (12)

    		Upper leg17 (9.7)13 (12.1)3 (12)

    		Lower leg1 (0.6)22 (20.6)4 (16)

    		Ankle10 (5.7)18 (16.8)4 (16)

    		Foot4 (2.3)21 (19.6)4 (16)

    		Other positionsi6 (3.4)10 (9.3)1 (4)

    		Not reported31 (17.6)4 (3.7)2 (8)
    Number of publications per sensor type (one publication can use multiple types of sensors), n (%)

    		Accelerometer165 (93.8)101 (94.4)23 (92)


    		Uniaxial48 (27.3)8 (7.5)1 (4)


    		Biaxial5 (2.8)2 (1.9)1 (4)


    		Triaxial114 (64.8)92 (86)23 (92)

    		Gyroscope18 (10.2)65 (60.7)8 (32)

    		Magnetometer6 (3.4)48 (44.9)5 (20)

    		Touchscreen16 (9.1)3 (2.8)2 (8)

    		Mechanical pedometer10 (5.7)1 (0.9)0 (0)

    		Other sensor typesj10 (5.7)13 (12.1)3 (12)

    aData not available in 11 studies.

    bData not available in 13 studies.

    cData not available in 4 studies.

    dData not available in 7 studies.

    eData not available in 34 studies.

    fData not available in 44 studies.

    gData not available in 6 studies.

    hOther diseases include stroke, Parkinson disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

    iOther positions include bag or pocket, tip of the cane or crutches, and head.

    jOther sensor types include electrocardiogram, GPS, surface electromyography, portable metabolic system (VO2), skin impedance, force sensor, barometer, and thermometer.

    Information on Sensor Technologies Used

    As shown in Figure 2A, the most commonly used sensor type is the accelerometer (alone or in combination with a gyroscope or magnetometer). Smartphone touchscreens were used in 21 publications, mostly from 2020. With technological advances over the last few decades, the number of axes in accelerometers has gradually increased. Although in the early 2000s, most accelerometers relied on one axis, currently triaxial sensors are state-of-the-art (Figure 2B).

    The most popular anatomical landmarks for wearable placement in the real-world setting were the waist (96/176, 54.5% publications), wrist (27/176, 15.3%), and hand and upper leg (17/176 each, 9.7%). Multiple mounting positions were typically chosen in the laboratory and mixed settings (Figure 2C). The majority of the real-world studies equipped their participants with only 1 wearable (146/176, 83%), while 59.8% (64/107) of laboratory setting studies mounted multiple wearables (Multimedia Appendix 9). The number of wearables mounted on the upper and lower extremities has vastly increased over time (Multimedia Appendix 10). Multiple wearables are advantageous for assessing the role and interplay of different body parts during physical activity. A controlled laboratory setting simplifies the use of multiple wearables. However, in a real-world setting, multiple wearables are less practical or less feasible and potentially reduce the compliance of the participants. Refer to the Shiny app [28] for more detailed information on the wearables and their sensors.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Information on wearables and sensors. (A) Number of publications published per year and per type of sensor used. Publications using multiple types of sensors count multiple times, once for each type of sensor. Others: electrocardiogram, GPS, surface electromyography, portable metabolic system (VO2), skin impedance, force sensor, barometer, and thermometer. (B) Number of publications published per year and per type of accelerometer used. Publications using multiple types of accelerometers count multiple times, once for each type of accelerometer. (C) Distribution of the sensors per physical position and context in which it was worn (real-world setting, controlled laboratory setting, and mixed setting); others: head, pocket, bag, chest, and crutches.

    Systematic Mapping of Types of Results

    Overview

    The functional domain physical activity was most commonly examined (196/308, 63.6%), followed by gait (81/308, 26.3%), dexterity or tremor (38/308, 12.3%), and balance (34/308, 11%). Most publications only covered 1 functional domain at a time, but 22 publications covered 2 domains, 6 publications covered 3 domains [17,40-44], and 2 publications covered all 4 domains [45,46] simultaneously. Starting in 2015, the proportion of publications examining functional domains other than physical activity has increased markedly (Multimedia Appendix 11).

    Association With Clinical MS Severity Scores

    A total of 81 studies described the relationship between standard clinical tests of disease severity and wearable-derived features of motor function in people with MS (Figure 3A). Commonly used MS impairment and disability metrics include EDSS and PDDS. For instance, Fjeldstad et al [47] demonstrated that accelerometers can objectively quantify physical activity levels in people with MS across varying levels of disability as measured by the EDSS [47]. The amount of physical activity captured by accelerometry is inversely proportional to the degree of physical disability. Similar correlations were found between the PDDS score and different accelerometric features (eg, mean and maximum step counts per day) [48]. A majority of the studies found a significant association between clinical MS severity scores and features derived from wearable devices.

    ‎
    Figure 3. Results reported by domain and context studied. (A) Association with clinical severity score (Expanded Disability Status Scale or Patient Determined Disease Steps); (B) association with other measure; (C) test-retest reliability; (D) group differences (multiple sclerosis [MS] vs healthy controls [HC]); (E) group differences (MS vs MS); (F) group differences (MS vs other diseases), including Parkinson disease, stroke, and rheumatoid arthritis; (G) responsiveness to change; (H) responsiveness to intervention (controlled study); and (I) subjective participant acceptability. RW: real-world setting.
    Association With Other Measures

    Wearable-derived features are frequently correlated or associated with the outcomes of specific clinical measures, such as the 2MWT, 6-minute walking test, T25FW, and TUG for mobility or the 9-Hole Peg Test for dexterity [49-54]. Other measures can also include clinical questionnaires or, for technical validation, nonwearable gold standard measurements of motor function, such as instrumented walkways or optical motion tracking. A total of 180 studies reported this type of correlation or association between wearable-derived features and other outcome measures (Figure 3B). Many of these correlations or associations were found to be significant.

    Test-Retest Reliability

    We identified 30 studies that assessed the test-retest reliability of sensor technologies (Figure 3C). The intraclass correlation coefficient is a common measure of test-retest reliability. Most studies have found sensor technologies to produce reliable measures at different time points. Typically, the assessments were 1 day [55], 1 week [56], or even 6 months apart [57].

    Group Differences

    Wearable sensor technologies were compared between people with MS and (matched) healthy controls in 110 studies (Figure 3D) [58,59], between subpopulations of people with MS based on symptoms or disease progression in 90 studies (eg, tremor vs nontremor participants and different levels of activity; Figure 3E) [47,60-62], or distinguish MS from other neurological diseases in 9 studies (eg, Parkinson disease; Figure 3F). The suitability of wearable sensor technologies for detecting group differences was demonstrated in a majority of the studies. Identifying subgroups or different disease phenotypes is of great clinical relevance, as it may allow the tailoring of interventional strategies to the specific characteristics of different patient groups, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all strategy.

    Responsiveness to Change

    A total of 26 studies investigated the usefulness of sensor technologies in detecting and tracking changes over time (Figure 3G). Responsiveness of the sensors was defined as the ability to detect a significant change between pairs of assessments separated in time (eg, days, weeks, or months between assessments). A total of 17 of these 26 (68%) publications reported at least some significant results [54,63-78].

    Responsiveness to Intervention

    A total of 22 studies used sensor technologies within the framework of clinical trials to provide an objective measure of the impact of an intervention on physical activity (Figure 3H) [79,80]. For example, the FAMPKIN study showed that prolonged-release fampridine significantly improved walking speed, endurance, and everyday physical activity in a subset of people with MS (ie, responders) [80]. The latter was measured using an accelerometer attached to the ankle for 14 consecutive days during each of the 2 double-blind treatment phases. Another double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study investigated the effect of extended-release dalfampridine on physical activity [79]. Accelerometer outcomes (number of steps per day and total ambulatory time) were comparable between the dalfampridine and placebo groups. In contrast, the results derived from the self-reported Physical Activity and Disability Survey–Revised [343] indicated a therapeutic effect of dalfampridine on physical activity [79].

    Subjective Participant Acceptability

    We found only 9 studies investigating subjective meaningfulness and acceptability of wearables among people with MS through questionnaires (Figure 3I) [45,46,81-87]. They generally reported favorable opinions, and the majority of people with MS would have liked to continue using the wearables.

    Reporting Quality Assessment

    The results of the reporting quality assessment are presented in Multimedia Appendix 12 [17,18,31,33-337]. Reporting quality was classified as very good in 3 of 308 (1%) publications [88-90], as good for the vast majority of publications (298/308, 96.8%), and as substandard for 7 of 308 (2.3%) publications. Most of the publications provided sufficient details on the study’s objective, demographics, disease characteristics, and the strength of the results (eg, ways of calculating effect sizes or reporting CIs or SD). In contrast, only a few studies provided the data or the code used for data preparation and analysis (16/308, 5.2%) [40-42,52,59,88-98]. A remarkable number of studies did not report any limitations (24/308, 7.8%). The most frequently mentioned limitations were a small sample size and narrow inclusion criteria, which did not allow the generalization of the findings across all people with MS.


    Principal Findings

    Effective management of people with MS requires frequent and objective measurement of the patient’s condition during normal daily activity. However, conventional MS outcome measures provide only a momentary snapshot of the disease course and have several limitations, including high interrater variability as well as recall and desirability bias [344-346]. A promising option to shift from traditional clinical assessments to objective and continuous disease monitoring in people with MS resides is the use of wearable sensor technologies. These technologies have the potential to transform health care for people with MS and are thus increasingly used in clinical studies to assess and track physical activity and other MS-related motor outcomes with time-series analyses of unprecedented temporal resolution. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the currently used wearable sensor technologies and shed light on technological advances over the last few decades. Moreover, we assembled the existing evidence on the suitability and reliability of sensor technologies in the context of clinical routine (associations with clinical measures and differentiation of patient subgroups) and clinical trials (responsiveness to treatments).

    Similar to other medical fields [347], wearable sensor technologies used to monitor disease progression and assess the propensity of people with MS to engage in physical activity have undergone a rapid transformation in the past few decades. Early applications of sensor technologies involved mechanical pedometers and monoaxial accelerometers, transitioned to multiaxial accelerometers or gyroscopes, and finally to phone-based monitoring. Although this technology has also progressed from real-world to laboratory and mixed settings over the last 2 decades, the majority of studies were still conducted in real-world and mixed settings.

    Comparing sensor technologies with clinical scales (eg, EDSS and PDDS) and performance measures (eg, 2MWT, TUG, and T25FW) in a controlled laboratory and clinical setting is an important strategy for gathering information about the underlying biomechanics and neurophysiological aspects of the specific tasks. Often, these laboratory studies make use of multiple wearables in multiple positions to assess the role and interplay between different body parts and laterality during gait tasks [53,99-101], postural sway [102-106], tremor [102-107], and gait-related fatigue [108-110]. This is in contrast to real-world studies, which usually use 1 or 2 wearables only, presumably because of usability and adherence. It remains to be seen whether findings from multiwearable laboratory studies can be replicated in single wearable real-world studies in the future.

    Similar to traditional clinical assessments, studies in a laboratory setting are somewhat limited in terms of their observation window (minutes to hours) and the environment (generally safe, no obstacles). Continuous monitoring of physical activity under real-world conditions, on the other hand, allows taking into consideration environmentally induced tradeoffs, which inadvertently result in behavior modifications (eg, prioritizing safety over efficiency in terms of walking pattern) [348,349]. Analysis of continuous monitoring must consider the possibility of long-term practice effects, which have been described for dexterity tests but not mobility tests [41]. To leverage the benefits of both real-world and laboratory settings, a growing number of studies have assessed MS-related motor outcomes in the clinic combined with continuous physical activity monitoring in free-living conditions.

    This review identified 3 major applications of sensor technology in people with MS: identifying subgroups of people with MS, monitoring disease progression, and tracking responses to interventions. Since the early 2000s, several studies have investigated whether digital outcomes are associated with clinical scores (eg, disease severity) or other disease-specific outcomes (eg, imaging outcomes). Findings from these studies indicate that digital outcomes are correlated with clinical and disease-specific outcomes, suggesting that they could serve as potential proxies for certain aspects of the disease (eg, severity). Validation and reliability studies aim at implementing sensor technologies in the clinical routine for diagnosis and prognosis. Digital monitoring of people with MS was also found to aid in the identification of patient subgroups based on differences in physical activity. Further studies are needed to demonstrate whether digital monitoring can detect subtle changes that might be indicative of disease progression in people with MS in general or in subgroups (eg, fallers vs nonfallers). Since 2015, there has been an increasing trend in studies focusing on using wearable and mobile devices for predicting or quantifying the response to an intervention. However, findings regarding the utility of sensors in the framework of clinical trials were inconclusive. Finally, only a very small number of studies have investigated whether digital outcomes are subjectively meaningful and acceptable for people with MS. Although the results of these studies are overwhelmingly positive, future studies are needed to investigate people with MS perspectives on wearable devices, including concerns about data privacy and safety.

    Perspective and Recommendations

    There are many barriers to the full clinical adoption of digital monitoring, including reproducibility of results, lack of external validation, and cost of digital devices. Our review demonstrated that there is substantial heterogeneity among the wearable sensor technologies used for the assessment of people with MS, not only regarding the number of devices but also in relation to the methodologies used in studying them. A large proportion of the devices, their potential benefits, and utility are still far from implementation in clinical routine, partly because of the lack of guidelines on how to use them. Further research is needed to accelerate the development of technology in the field of MS and to address unmet needs. This section provides recommendations on how to harmonize experimental designs and report studies using wearable sensor technologies to assess motor outcomes in people with MS (Table 3). This harmonization is necessary to compare different sensor technologies, facilitate reproducibility of studies, and establish benchmark technologies and data sets for validation of future studies and technologies.

    Table 3. Recommendation for future investigations using sensor technologies in people with multiple sclerosis.
    RecommendationRemarksExamples
    Make code publicly available or usableTo reproduce results or use previous findings in a comparative study, it is pivotal to have access to the raw code or a binary variant thereof that was used to perform the experiments. Authors are encouraged to share their code, for example via platforms, such as GitHub, Inc (Microsoft Corp), or their binaries using container technologies like Docker.GitHub [40,41,52,93,350] and Docker [351]
    Make data availableIn compliance with international data protection laws, data sources should be made accessible to bonafide researchers as far as possible. Numerous data repositories exist, which researchers can use to make their data (or parts thereof) accessible in accordance with data protection laws.EUDATa [352], Zenodo [353], Dryad [354], IEEEb DataPort [355], university repository [88,91], and journal supplement [92]
    Provide sufficient details to reproduce studyA prerequisite of being able to replicate the results of any study is having access to the following details: study setting (eg, observational study, clinical trial, and secondary analysis), study population (eg, inclusion and exclusion criteria, demographics, and disease characteristics), sensor technology (eg, type and configuration of sensors, number of axes, mounting position, and recording frequency).Detailed study protocol and statistical analysis plan
    Use licenses for codesLicenses protect the creators and the users of code by defining how and for what purposes the code can be reused. Several open source licenses exist, making it possible to satisfy the constraints of most authors, including companies that want to protect their intellectual property.Apache license [40], BSDc licenses, and GPLd [52,93]
    Use external validation for machine learning modelsExternal validation is integral to determine the generalizability of machine learning models.Publicly available data sets

    aEUDAT: European Data Infrastructure.

    bIEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

    cBSD: Berkeley Software Distribution.

    dGPL: General Public License.

    Reproducibility is considered an essential cornerstone of scientific and technological progress [356]. Thus, it is important that studies provide sufficient details on the study setting (eg, observational study, clinical trial, and secondary analysis), study population (eg, inclusion and exclusion criteria, demographics, and disease characteristics), sensor technology (eg, type and configuration of sensors, number of axes, mounting position, and recording frequency), software used to extract raw data from the sensors, and algorithms used to define features and to perform the analysis. In light of this, authors are encouraged to make their codes publicly available on suitable platforms such as GitHub [357]. The development, adaptation, and extension of code are pivotal in promoting technological progress and assisting with the implementation of wearable sensor technologies in the clinical routine. Ideally, code sharing within reasonable bounds should become the default for publications in the field of MS and beyond.

    Along with sharing codes, the authors would ideally make their data available. Although there are legitimate constraints with sharing data, authors should follow the FAIR principles and make their raw data (or metadata thereof) findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable [358]. The FAIR guidelines provide guidance to authors on how to share their data while conserving the privacy of the patients and adhere to data safety and protection regulations (eg, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [359] and General Data Protection Regulations [360]). Sharing algorithmic details and raw sensor data allows for external validation and comparability of algorithms; thus, it is necessary to advance the field from the current state of independent feasibility studies to the next level of potential clinical use. Of the 308 included publications, only 16 have shared codes and data publicly [40-42,52,59,88-98]. Future studies could leverage shared data as an external validation set. Finally, we noticed that some studies reused data from previously published studies. Authors should declare the reuse of the study or patient populations by preregistering studies (eg, using the clinical trial platform [361]).

    Guidelines for the use of wearable sensor technologies in clinical trials, their validation, and the reporting of their data have recently been developed by precompetitive collaborations between academia and industry [21,22], as well as regulatory agencies, such as Food and Drug Administration [7] and the European Medicines Agency [19,20]. However, these guidelines are not yet well known, and journals should recommend or even require their adaptation to disseminate these best practices. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, no guidelines exist specifically for the use of wearable sensor technologies in clinical routine, even though some clinical trial recommendations are applicable.

    Limitations of This Review

    A limitation of this review is that the literature search was restricted to articles listed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, or Web of Science databases. Considering the pace at which the research in this area is moving forward, it is likely that the findings of the publications described in this review will be quickly complemented by further research. The literature search also excluded gray literature (eg, preprints, reports, and conference proceedings), whose importance is unknown to the topic, and thus might have introduced another source of search bias. There is also a probability of publication bias, which is likely to result from studies with more positive results being preferentially submitted and accepted for publication. Moreover, the heterogeneity in the outcome reporting and specifics of the sensor technologies used (eg, missing information on recording frequency, mounting position, and algorithms) did not allow us to perform a meta-analysis to aggregate the overall trend in performance among the sensor technologies. Another limitation is the reuse of study data, which has been reported in only a few publications. In some cases, a reuse of study data was suspected but was not specifically declared by the authors. Finally, a considerable number of studies (particularly in the laboratory setting group) did not provide any information on the disease course of the included participants. The lack of disease-specific information hampers the interpretation of study results and hinders comparisons across studies.

    Conclusions

    Wearable sensor technologies have gained popularity in the field of MS over the last few decades, which is reflected by the large number of studies using them to objectively assess motor functions in people with MS in different settings (real-world and controlled laboratory settings) and clinical trials. Accelerometers, often in combination with gyroscopes and magnetometers, were the most commonly used sensors in the reviewed studies. In recent years, a surge in smartphone and smartwatch apps has been observed. A common denominator across the studies was that sensor technologies have the potential to reliably detect subtle changes in physical activity and other motor outcomes overlooked by conventional assessment methods, such as questionnaires and self-reported instruments. Thus, wearable sensor technologies constitute an intriguing tool to complement conventional clinical tests and self-reported outcomes. To adopt wearable sensor technologies in clinical routine and clinical trials, it is of utmost importance to establish guidelines for the use of sensor technologies and perform validation trials.

    Acknowledgments

    This study was supported by a Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione grant PZ00P3_186101, Jutzeler). The funding sources of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript. The corresponding authors had full access to all data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

    Data Availability

    The GitHub repository including all code and data [27], the interactive Shiny app for exploring the results [28], and the interactive local citation network and coauthorship network of the included studies [29] are openly available.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

    DOCX File , 34 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Local citation network of 308 included studies. Each node represents 1 study and the rows are ordered by publication year. Arrows between nodes indicate citations and each node’s size is proportional to its degree, that is, the sum of local incoming and outgoing citations [28].

    PNG File , 4870 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Coauthorship network. Each node represents 1 author with at least 3 included studies, and the size of each node is proportional to the author’s number of included studies. Links between nodes indicate coauthorship, and each link’s width is proportional to the number of coauthored selected studies [28].

    PNG File , 4035 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Distribution of the number of people with multiple sclerosis included in publications stratified by year of publication.

    PNG File , 128 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Detailed information on studies focusing on wearables in a real-world context. Compare Shiny app for the interactive version [28].

    DOCX File , 67 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 6

    Detailed information on studies focusing on wearables in a laboratory context. Compare Shiny app for the interactive version [28].

    DOCX File , 49 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 7

    Detailed information on studies focusing on wearables in a mixed context (ie, a combination of laboratory and real-world contexts). Compare Shiny app for the interactive version [28].

    DOCX File , 25 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 8

    Number of publications per context over time.

    PNG File , 96 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 9

    Number of publications per number of wearables used and context studied.

    PNG File , 47 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 10

    Number of publications per wearable position over time. Publications may be counted multiple times.

    PNG File , 108 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 11

    Number of publications per domain studied. Publications may be counted multiple times.

    PNG File , 96 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 12

    Reporting quality assessment of included studies.

    DOCX File , 63 KB
    1. Ghasemi N, Razavi S, Nikzad E. Multiple sclerosis: pathogenesis, symptoms, diagnoses and cell-based therapy. Cell J. Apr 2017;19(1):1-10. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Boiko A, Vorobeychik G, Paty D, Devonshire V, Sadovnick D, University of British Columbia MS Clinic Neurologists. Early onset multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Neurology. Oct 08, 2002;59(7):1006-1010. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Murray TJ. Diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis. BMJ. Mar 04, 2006;332(7540):525-527. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Kappos L, Wolinsky JS, Giovannoni G, Arnold DL, Wang Q, Bernasconi C, et al. Contribution of relapse-independent progression vs relapse-associated worsening to overall confirmed disability accumulation in typical relapsing multiple sclerosis in a pooled analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Neurol. Sep 01, 2020;77(9):1132-1140. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Rae-Grant A, Bennett A, Sanders AE, Phipps M, Cheng E, Bever C. Quality improvement in neurology: multiple sclerosis quality measures: executive summary. Neurology. Nov 24, 2015;85(21):1904-1908. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Mills EA, Mirza A, Mao-Draayer Y. Emerging approaches for validating and managing multiple sclerosis relapse. Front Neurol. Mar 29, 2017;8:116. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Digital health technologies for remote data acquisition in clinical investigations - draft guidance for industry, investigators, and other stakeholders. United States Food and Drug Administration. Dec 2021. URL: https:/​/www.​fda.gov/​regulatory-information/​search-fda-guidance-documents/​digital-health-technologies-remote-data-acquisition-clinical-investigations [accessed 2022-12-13]
    8. Alexander S, Peryer G, Gray E, Barkhof F, Chataway J. Wearable technologies to measure clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis: a scoping review. Mult Scler. Oct 2021;27(11):1643-1656. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Motl RW, Sandroff BM, Sosnoff JJ. Commercially available accelerometry as an ecologically valid measure of ambulation in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother. Sep 2012;12(9):1079-1088. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Bradshaw MJ, Farrow S, Motl RW, Chitnis T. Wearable biosensors to monitor disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin Pract. Aug 2017;7(4):354-362. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Sparaco M, Lavorgna L, Conforti R, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. The role of wearable devices in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. Oct 10, 2018;2018:7627643. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Sasaki JE, Sandroff B, Bamman M, Motl RW. Motion sensors in multiple sclerosis: narrative review and update of applications. Expert Rev Med Devices. Nov 2017;14(11):891-900. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Vienne-Jumeau A, Quijoux F, Vidal PP, Ricard D. Wearable inertial sensors provide reliable biomarkers of disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. Mar 2020;63(2):138-147. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Celik Y, Stuart S, Woo WL, Godfrey A. Gait analysis in neurological populations: progression in the use of wearables. Med Eng Phys. Jan 2021;87:9-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Polhemus A, Ortiz LD, Brittain G, Chynkiamis N, Salis F, Gaßner H, et al. Mobilise-D. Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes. NPJ Digit Med. Oct 14, 2021;4(1):149. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Abou L, Wong E, Peters J, Dossou MS, Sosnoff JJ, Rice LA. Smartphone applications to assess gait and postural control in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jun 2021;51:102943. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Kasser SL, Jacobs JV, Ford M, Tourville TW. Effects of balance-specific exercises on balance, physical activity and quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis: a pilot investigation. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(24):2238-2249. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Ayache SS, Al-ani T, Farhat WH, Zouari HG, Créange A, Lefaucheur JP. Analysis of tremor in multiple sclerosis using Hilbert-Huang transform. Neurophysiol Clin. Dec 2015;45(6):475-484. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Questions and answers: qualification of digital technology-based methodologies to support approval of medicinal products. European Medicines Agency. 2020. URL: https:/​/www.​ema.europa.eu/​en/​documents/​other/​questions-answers-qualification-digital-technology-based-methodologies-support-approval-medicinal_en.​pdf [accessed 2022-12-13]
    20. Dekker MJ, Stolk P, Pasmooij AM. The use of remote monitoring technologies: a review of recent regulatory scientific advices, qualification opinions, and qualification advices issued by the European medicines agency. Front Med (Lausanne). Jul 01, 2021;8:619513. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Walton MK, Cappelleri JC, Byrom B, Goldsack JC, Eremenco S, Harris D, et al. Considerations for development of an evidence dossier to support the use of mobile sensor technology for clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. Apr 2020;91:105962. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Goldsack JC, Coravos A, Bakker JP, Bent B, Dowling AV, Fitzer-Attas C, et al. Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs). NPJ Digit Med. Apr 14, 2020;3:55. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Library of digital endpoints. Digital Medicine Society. URL: https://www.dimesociety.org/get-involved/library-of-digital-endpoints/ [accessed 2022-12-13]
    24. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. Feb 09, 2012;1:2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. Jan 01, 2015;4(1):1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Priem J, Piwowar H, Orr R. OpenAlex: a fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv. Preprint posted online May 4, 2022. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    27. Woelfle T, Bourguignon L, Lorscheider J, Kappos L, Naegelin Y, Jutzeler CR. Systematic review of literature describing sensor technology in the field of multiple sclerosis. GitHub. URL: https://github.com/jutzca/Sensor_technology_MS_Syst_Review [accessed 2023-07-04]
    28. Woelfle T, Bourguignon L, Lorscheider J, Kappos L, Naegelin Y, Jutzeler CR. MS wearable sensors - a review. Shiny Apps. URL: https://lbourguignon.shinyapps.io/MS-Review/ [accessed 2023-07-04]
    29. Woelfle T, Bourguignon L, Lorscheider J, Kappos L, Naegelin Y, Jutzeler CR. Local citation network. GitHub. URL: https://localcitationnetwork.github.io/?fromJSON=MS-Wearable-Sensors.json [accessed 2023-07-04]
    30. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. Nov 1983;33(11):1444-1452. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Learmonth YC, Motl RW, Sandroff BM, Pula JH, Cadavid D. Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. Apr 25, 2013;13:37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Qiao N. A systematic review on machine learning in sellar region diseases: quality and reporting items. Endocr Connect. Jul 2019;8(7):952-960. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Schlesinger S, Neuhaus A, Thiele A, Kippnich M, Rashid A, Griewing B, et al. Sind Mobilitätseinschränkungen bei Patienten mit Multipler Sklerose messbar? Klin Neurophysiol. Mar 11, 2011;42(1):17-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    34. Grover SA, Sawicki CP, Kinnett-Hopkins D, Finlayson M, Schneiderman JE, Banwell B, et al. Physical activity and its correlates in youth with multiple sclerosis. J Pediatr. Dec 2016;179:197-203.e2. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Kinnett-Hopkins D, Grover SA, Yeh EA, Motl RW. Physical activity in pediatric onset multiple sclerosis: validating a questionnaire for clinical practice and research. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Nov 2016;10:26-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Stephens S, Berenbaum T, Finlayson M, Motl RW, Yeh EA. Youth with multiple sclerosis have low levels of fitness. Mult Scler. Sep 2021;27(10):1597-1605. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Brenton JN, Florenzo B, Koshiya H, Min S, Woolbright E, Coleman R, et al. Six-minute walk as a measure of walking capacity and endurance in patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. Neurology. Aug 19, 2022;99(19):e2161-e2170. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Stephens S, Schneiderman JE, Finlayson M, Berenbaum T, Motl RW, Yeh EA. Feasibility of a theory-informed mobile app for changing physical activity in youth with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Feb 2022;58:103467. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Karle V, Hartung V, Ivanovska K, Mäurer M, Flachenecker P, Pfeifer K, et al. The two-minute walk test in persons with multiple sclerosis: correlations of cadence with free-living walking do not support ecological validity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 04, 2020;17(23):9044. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Pratap A, Grant D, Vegesna A, Tummalacherla M, Cohan S, Deshpande C, et al. Evaluating the utility of smartphone-based sensor assessments in persons with multiple sclerosis in the real-world using an app (elevateMS): observational, prospective pilot digital health study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Oct 27, 2020;8(10):e22108. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Woelfle T, Pless S, Wiencierz A, Kappos L, Naegelin Y, Lorscheider J. Practice effects of mobile tests of cognition, dexterity, and mobility on patients with multiple sclerosis: data analysis of a smartphone-based observational study. J Med Internet Res. Nov 18, 2021;23(11):e30394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Lam JS, Hasan MR, Ahmed KA, Hossain MZ. Machine learning to diagnose neurodegenerative multiple sclerosis disease. In: Proceedings of the 14th Asian Conference on Recent Challenges in Intelligent Information and Database Systems. Presented at: ACIIDS '22; November 28-30, 2022, 2022;251-262; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-8234-7_20 [CrossRef]
    43. Montalban X, Graves J, Midaglia L, Mulero P, Julian L, Baker M, et al. A smartphone sensor-based digital outcome assessment of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Apr 2022;28(4):654-664. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Ganzetti M, Graves JS, Holm SP, Dondelinger F, Midaglia L, Gaetano L, et al. Neural correlates of digital measures shown by structural MRI: a post-hoc analysis of a smartphone-based remote assessment feasibility study in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. Mar 2023;270(3):1624-1636. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Midaglia L, Mulero P, Montalban X, Graves J, Hauser SL, Julian L, et al. Adherence and satisfaction of smartphone- and smartwatch-based remote active testing and passive monitoring in people with multiple sclerosis: nonrandomized interventional feasibility study. J Med Internet Res. Aug 30, 2019;21(8):e14863. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Woelfle T, Pless S, Reyes O, Wiencierz A, Feinstein A, Calabrese P, et al. Reliability and acceptance of dreaMS, a software application for people with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility study. J Neurol. Jan 2023;270(1):262-271. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Fjeldstad C, Fjeldstad AS, Pardo G. Use of accelerometers to measure real-life physical activity in ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Int J MS Care. Sep 2015;17(5):215-220. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Abbadessa G, Lavorgna L, Miele G, Mignone A, Signoriello E, Lus G, et al. Assessment of multiple sclerosis disability progression using a wearable biosensor: a pilot study. J Clin Med. Mar 10, 2021;10(6):1160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Motl RW, Weikert M, Suh Y, Sosnoff JJ, Pula J, Soaz C, et al. Accuracy of the actibelt(®) accelerometer for measuring walking speed in a controlled environment among persons with multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture. Feb 2012;35(2):192-196. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Dandu SR, Engelhard MM, Goldman MD, Lach J. Determining physiological significance of inertial gait features in multiple sclerosis. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. Presented at: BSN '16; June 14-17, 2016, 2016;266-271; San Francisco, CA, USA. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7516271/ [CrossRef]
    51. Cohen M, Mondot L, Fakir S, Landes C, Lebrun C. Digital biomarkers can highlight subtle clinical differences in radiologically isolated syndrome compared to healthy controls. J Neurol. Apr 2021;268(4):1316-1322. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Tulipani LJ, Meyer B, Larie D, Solomon AJ, McGinnis RS. Metrics extracted from a single wearable sensor during sit-stand transitions relate to mobility impairment and fall risk in people with multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture. Jul 2020;80:361-366. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Angelini L, Hodgkinson W, Smith C, Dodd JM, Sharrack B, Mazzà C, et al. Wearable sensors can reliably quantify gait alterations associated with disability in people with progressive multiple sclerosis in a clinical setting. J Neurol. Oct 2020;267(10):2897-2909. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Krysko KM, Akhbardeh A, Arjona J, Nourbakhsh B, Waubant E, Antoine Gourraud P, et al. Biosensor vital sign detects multiple sclerosis progression. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. Jan 2021;8(1):4-14. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Craig JJ, Bruetsch AP, Lynch SG, Horak FB, Huisinga JM. Instrumented balance and walking assessments in persons with multiple sclerosis show strong test-retest reliability. J Neuroeng Rehabil. May 22, 2017;14(1):43. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Rietberg MB, van Wegen EE, Uitdehaag BM, de Vet HC, Kwakkel G. How reproducible is home-based 24-hour ambulatory monitoring of motor activity in patients with multiple sclerosis? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Oct 2010;91(10):1537-1541. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Motl RW, McAuley E, Klaren R. Reliability of physical-activity measures over six months in adults with multiple sclerosis: implications for designing behavioral interventions. Behav Med. 2014;40(1):29-33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Bollaert RE, Motl RW. Physical and cognitive functions, physical activity, and sedentary behavior in older adults with multiple sclerosis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. Oct 2019;42(4):304-312. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Schwab P, Karlen W. A deep learning approach to diagnosing multiple sclerosis from smartphone data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Apr 2021;25(4):1284-1291. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Braakhuis HE, Berger MA, van der Stok GA, van Meeteren J, de Groot V, Beckerman H, et al. TREFAMS-ACE study group. Three distinct physical behavior types in fatigued patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Aug 23, 2019;16(1):105. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Pau M, Porta M, Coghe G, Frau J, Lorefice L, Cocco E. Does multiple sclerosis differently impact physical activity in women and man? A quantitative study based on wearable accelerometers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 28, 2020;17(23):8848. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Klassen L, Schachter C, Scudds R. An exploratory study of two measures of free-living physical activity for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. Mar 2008;22(3):260-271. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Motl RW, McAuley E. Longitudinal analysis of physical activity and symptoms as predictors of change in functional limitations and disability in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. May 2009;54(2):204-210. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Motl RW, McAuley E. Pathways between physical activity and quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis. Health Psychol. Nov 2009;28(6):682-689. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Filipović Grčić P, Matijaca M, Lušić I, Čapkun V. Responsiveness of walking-based outcome measures after multiple sclerosis relapses following steroid pulses. Med Sci Monit. Dec 2011;17(12):CR704-CR710. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Motl RW, Dlugonski D. Increasing physical activity in multiple sclerosis using a behavioral intervention. Behav Med. Oct 2011;37(4):125-131. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Motl RW, McAuley E, Sandroff BM. Longitudinal change in physical activity and its correlates in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Phys Ther. Aug 2013;93(8):1037-1048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Shammas L, Zentek T, von Haaren B, Schlesinger S, Hey S, Rashid A. Home-based system for physical activity monitoring in patients with multiple sclerosis (Pilot study). Biomed Eng Online. Feb 06, 2014;13:10. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Spain RI, Mancini M, Horak FB, Bourdette D. Body-worn sensors capture variability, but not decline, of gait and balance measures in multiple sclerosis over 18 months. Gait Posture. Mar 2014;39(3):958-964. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Bove R, White CC, Giovannoni G, Glanz B, Golubchikov V, Hujol J, et al. Evaluating more naturalistic outcome measures: a 1-year smartphone study in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. Oct 15, 2015;2(6):e162. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Block VJ, Bove R, Zhao C, Garcha P, Graves J, Romeo AR, et al. Association of continuous assessment of step count by remote monitoring with disability progression among adults with multiple sclerosis. JAMA Netw Open. Mar 01, 2019;2(3):e190570. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Ehling R, Bsteh G, Muehlbacher A, Hermann K, Brenneis C. Ecological validity of walking capacity tests following rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. Aug 01, 2019;14(8):e0220613. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Silveira SL, Motl RW. Do social cognitive theory constructs explain response heterogeneity with a physical activity behavioral intervention in multiple sclerosis? Contemp Clin Trials Commun. Apr 26, 2019;15:100366. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Nasseri NN, Ghezelbash E, Zhai Y, Patra S, Riemann-Lorenz K, Heesen C, et al. Feasibility of a smartphone app to enhance physical activity in progressive MS: a pilot randomized controlled pilot trial over three months. PeerJ. Jun 23, 2020;8:e9303. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Stuart CM, Varatharaj A, Domjan J, Philip S, Galea I, SIMS study group. Physical activity monitoring to assess disability progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. Dec 07, 2020;6(4):2055217320975185. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Vienne-Jumeau A, Oudre L, Moreau A, Quijoux F, Edmond S, Dandrieux M, et al. Personalized template-based step detection from inertial measurement units signals in multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. Apr 21, 2020;11:261. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Creagh AP, Dondelinger F, Lipsmeier F, Lindemann M, De Vos M. Longitudinal trend monitoring of multiple sclerosis ambulation using smartphones. IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. Nov 10, 2022;3:202-210. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Huang SC, Guerrieri S, Dalla Costa G, Pisa M, Leccabue G, Gregoris L, et al. Intensive neurorehabilitation and gait improvement in progressive multiple sclerosis: clinical, kinematic and electromyographic analysis. Brain Sci. Feb 12, 2022;12(2):258. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Brown TR, Simnad VI. A randomized crossover trial of dalfampridine extended release for effect on ambulatory activity in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. Jul 2016;18(4):170-176. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Zörner B, Filli L, Reuter K, Kapitza S, Lörincz L, Sutter T, et al. Prolonged-release fampridine in multiple sclerosis: improved ambulation effected by changes in walking pattern. Mult Scler. Oct 2016;22(11):1463-1475. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Hale LA, Pal J, Becker I. Measuring free-living physical activity in adults with and without neurologic dysfunction with a triaxial accelerometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Sep 2008;89(9):1765-1771. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Kayes NM, Schluter PJ, McPherson KM, Leete M, Mawston G, Taylor D. Exploring actical accelerometers as an objective measure of physical activity in people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Apr 2009;90(4):594-601. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Maillart E, Labauge P, Cohen M, Maarouf A, Vukusic S, Donzé C, et al. MSCopilot, a new multiple sclerosis self-assessment digital solution: results of a comparative study versus standard tests. Eur J Neurol. Mar 2020;27(3):429-436. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Guo G, Zhang H, Yao L, Li H, Xu C, Li Z, et al. MSLife: digital behavioral phenotyping of multiple sclerosis symptoms in the wild using wearables and graph-based statistical analysis. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. Dec 30, 2021;5(4):1-35. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    85. Hsieh K, Fanning J, Frechette M, Sosnoff J. Usability of a fall risk mHealth app for people with multiple sclerosis: mixed methods study. JMIR Hum Factors. Mar 22, 2021;8(1):e25604. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. van Oirschot P, Heerings M, Wendrich K, den Teuling B, Dorssers F, van Ee R, et al. A two-minute walking test with a smartphone app for persons with multiple sclerosis: validation study. JMIR Form Res. Nov 17, 2021;5(11):e29128. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Frechette M, Fanning J, Hsieh K, Rice L, Sosnoff J. The usability of a smartphone-based fall risk assessment app for adult wheelchair users: observational study. JMIR Form Res. Sep 16, 2022;6(9):e32453. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Angelini L, Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Ferrarin M, Gervasoni E, Sharrack B, et al. Is a wearable sensor-based characterisation of gait robust enough to overcome differences between measurement protocols? A multi-centric pragmatic study in patients with multiple sclerosis. Sensors (Basel). Dec 21, 2019;20(1):79. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Delahaye C, Chaves D, Congnard F, Noury-Desvaux B, de Müllenheim PY, On Behalf Of The Socos Group. Measuring outdoor walking capacities using global positioning system in people with multiple sclerosis: clinical and methodological insights from an exploratory study. Sensors (Basel). May 04, 2021;21(9):3189. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Gervasoni E, Bertoni R, Anastasi D, Solaro C, Di Giovanni R, Grange E, et al. Acute thermoregulatory and cardiovascular response to submaximal exercise in people with multiple sclerosis. Front Immunol. Jul 06, 2022;13:842269. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Storm FA, Nair KP, Clarke AJ, Van der Meulen JM, Mazzà C. Free-living and laboratory gait characteristics in patients with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. May 01, 2018;13(5):e0196463. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Boukhvalova AK, Fan O, Weideman AM, Harris T, Kowalczyk E, Pham L, et al. Smartphone level test measures disability in several neurological domains for patients with multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. May 28, 2019;10:358. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Creagh AP, Simillion C, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, Bernasconi C, Belachew S, et al. Smartphone-based remote assessment of upper extremity function for multiple sclerosis using the Draw a Shape test. Physiol Meas. Jun 19, 2020;41(5):054002. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Creagh AP, Lipsmeier F, Lindemann M, De Vos M. Interpretable deep learning for the remote characterisation of ambulation in multiple sclerosis using smartphones. Sci Rep. Jul 12, 2021;11(1):14301. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Mosquera-Lopez C, Wan E, Shastry M, Folsom J, Leitschuh J, Condon J, et al. Automated detection of real-world falls: modeled from people with multiple sclerosis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Jun 2021;25(6):1975-1984. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. van Gelder LM, Angelini L, Buckley EE, Mazzà C. A proposal for a linear calculation of gait asymmetry. Symmetry. Aug 25, 2021;13(9):1560. [CrossRef]
    97. Tulipani LJ, Meyer B, Allen D, Solomon AJ, McGinnis RS. Evaluation of unsupervised 30-second chair stand test performance assessed by wearable sensors to predict fall status in multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture. May 2022;94:19-25. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Warmerdam E, Hansen C, Romijnders R, Hobert MA, Welzel J, Maetzler W. Full-body mobility data to validate inertial measurement unit algorithms in healthy and neurological cohorts. Data. Sep 27, 2022;7(10):136. [CrossRef]
    99. Motti Ader LG, Greene BR, McManus K, Tubridy N, Caulfield B. Short bouts of gait data and body-worn inertial sensors can provide reliable measures of spatiotemporal gait parameters from bilateral gait data for persons with multiple sclerosis. Biosensors (Basel). Sep 20, 2020;10(9):128. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Gong J, Lach J, Qi Y, Goldman MD. Causal analysis of inertial body sensors for enhancing gait assessment separability towards multiple sclerosis diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. Presented at: BSN '15; June 9-12, 2015, 2015;1-5; Cambridge, MA, USA. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7299400 [CrossRef]
    101. Angelini L, Buckley E, Bonci T, Radford A, Sharrack B, Paling D, et al. A multifactorial model of multiple sclerosis gait and its changes across different disability levels. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. Nov 2021;68(11):3196-3204. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Moon Y, Wajda DA, Motl RW, Sosnoff JJ. Stride-time variability and fall risk in persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2015;2015:964790. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Brodie MA, Psarakis M, Hoang P. Gyroscopic corrections improve wearable sensor data prior to measuring dynamic sway in the gait of people with multiple sclerosis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. Sep 2016;19(12):1339-1346. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Pau M, Porta M, Coghe G, Corona F, Pilloni G, Lorefice L, et al. Are static and functional balance abilities related in individuals with multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jul 2017;15:1-6. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Sun R, Moon Y, McGinnis RS, Seagers K, Motl RW, Sheth N, et al. Assessment of postural sway in individuals with multiple sclerosis using a novel wearable inertial sensor. Digit Biomark. Jan 23, 2018;2(1):1-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Huisinga J, Mancini M, Veys C, Spain R, Horak F. Coherence analysis of trunk and leg acceleration reveals altered postural sway strategy during standing in persons with multiple sclerosis. Hum Mov Sci. Apr 2018;58:330-336. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Solomon AJ, Jacobs JV, Lomond KV, Henry SM. Detection of postural sway abnormalities by wireless inertial sensors in minimally disabled patients with multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Sep 01, 2015;12:74. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Engelhard MM, Dandu SR, Patek SD, Lach JC, Goldman MD. Quantifying six-minute walk induced gait deterioration with inertial sensors in multiple sclerosis subjects. Gait Posture. Sep 2016;49:340-345. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Shema-Shiratzky S, Gazit E, Sun R, Regev K, Karni A, Sosnoff JJ, et al. Deterioration of specific aspects of gait during the instrumented 6-min walk test among people with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. Dec 2019;266(12):3022-3030. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Ibrahim AA, Küderle A, Gaßner H, Klucken J, Eskofier BM, Kluge F. Inertial sensor-based gait parameters reflect patient-reported fatigue in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Dec 18, 2020;17(1):165. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Ng AV, Kent-Braun JA. Quantitation of lower physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Apr 1997;29(4):517-523. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Scott JA. Validity of physical activity measures in ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. Sep 30, 2006;28(18):1151-1156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Motl RW, Snook EM, McAuley E, Gliottoni RC. Symptoms, self-efficacy, and physical activity among individuals with multiple sclerosis. Res Nurs Health. Dec 2006;29(6):597-606. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Motl RW, Snook EM, McAuley E, Scott JA, Douglass ML. Correlates of physical activity among individuals with multiple sclerosis. Ann Behav Med. Oct 2006;32(2):154-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Gosney JL, Scott JA, Snook EM, Motl RW. Physical activity and multiple sclerosis: validity of self-report and objective measures. Fam Community Health. Apr 2007;30(2):144-150. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Hale L, Williams K, Ashton C, Connole T, McDowell H, Taylor C. Reliability of RT3 accelerometer for measuring mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(4):619-627. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Kayes NM, McPherson KM, Taylor D, Schluter PJ, Wilson BJ, Kolt GS. The Physical Activity and Disability Survey (PADS): reliability, validity and acceptability in people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. Jul 2007;21(7):628-639. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Kos D, Nagels G, D'Hooghe MB, Duquet W, Ilsbroukx S, Delbeke S, et al. Measuring activity patterns using actigraphy in multiple sclerosis. Chronobiol Int. 2007;24(2):345-356. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM. Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: possible roles of social support, self-efficacy, and functional limitations. Rehabil Psychol. May 2007;52(2):143-151. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    120. Motl RW, Snook EM, McAuley E, Scott JA, Gliottoni RC. Are physical activity and symptoms correlates of functional limitations and disability in multiple sclerosis? Rehabil Psychol. Nov 2007;52(4):463-469. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    121. Motl RW, Zhu W, Park Y, McAuley E, Scott JA, Snook EM. Reliability of scores from physical activity monitors in adults with multiple sclerosis. Adapt Phys Activ Q. Jul 2007;24(3):245-253. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Gliottoni RC. Does the relationship between physical activity and quality of life differ based on generic versus disease-targeted instruments? Ann Behav Med. Aug 2008;36(1):93-99. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Motl RW, Snook EM. Confirmation and extension of the validity of the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12). J Neurol Sci. May 15, 2008;268(1-2):69-73. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Motl RW, Snook EM, Wynn DR, Vollmer T. Physical activity correlates with neurological impairment and disability in multiple sclerosis. J Nerv Ment Dis. Jun 2008;196(6):492-495. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Snook EM, Motl RW. Physical activity behaviors in individuals with multiple sclerosis: roles of overall and specific symptoms, and self-efficacy. J Pain Symptom Manage. Jul 2008;36(1):46-53. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Motl RW, McAuley E. Symptom cluster as a predictor of physical activity in multiple sclerosis: preliminary evidence. J Pain Symptom Manage. Aug 2009;38(2):270-280. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Motl R, McAuley E, Doerksen S, Hu L, Morris KS. Preliminary evidence that self-efficacy predicts physical activity in multiple sclerosis. Int J Rehabil Res. Sep 2009;32(3):260-263. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Gliottoni RC. Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy and social support. Psychol Health Med. Jan 2009;14(1):111-124. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Motl RW, Schwartz CE, Vollmer T. Continued validation of the symptom inventory in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. Oct 15, 2009;285(1-2):134-136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    130. Motl RW, Snook EM, Agiovlasitis S, Suh Y. Calibration of accelerometer output for ambulatory adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Oct 2009;90(10):1778-1784. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    131. Snook EM, Motl RW, Gliottoni RC. The effect of walking mobility on the measurement of physical activity using accelerometry in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. Mar 2009;23(3):248-258. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Gijbels D, Alders G, Van Hoof E, Charlier C, Roelants M, Broekmans T, et al. Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: relevance of capacity and self-report measures. Mult Scler. May 2010;16(5):618-626. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Motl RW, Dlugonski D, Suh Y, Weikert M, Fernhall B, Goldman M. Accelerometry and its association with objective markers of walking limitations in ambulatory adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Dec 2010;91(12):1942-1947. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Motl RW, McAuley E, Wynn D, Suh Y, Weikert M, Dlugonski D. Symptoms and physical activity among adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Nerv Ment Dis. Mar 2010;198(3):213-219. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Motl RW, Sosnoff JJ, Dlugonski D, Suh Y, Goldman M. Does a waist-worn accelerometer capture intra- and inter-person variation in walking behavior among persons with multiple sclerosis? Med Eng Phys. Dec 2010;32(10):1224-1228. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Sosnoff JJ, Goldman MD, Motl RW. Real-life walking impairment in multiple sclerosis: preliminary comparison of four methods for processing accelerometry data. Mult Scler. Jul 2010;16(7):868-877. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Suh Y, Motl RW, Mohr DC. Physical activity, disability, and mood in the early stage of multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. Apr 2010;3(2):93-98. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Weikert M, Motl RW, Suh Y, McAuley E, Wynn D. Accelerometry in persons with multiple sclerosis: measurement of physical activity or walking mobility? J Neurol Sci. Mar 15, 2010;290(1-2):6-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    139. Alaqtash M, Yu H, Brower R, Abdelgawad A, Sarkodie-Gyan T. Application of wearable sensors for human gait analysis using fuzzy computational algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell. Sep 2011;24(6):1018-1025. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    140. Weikert M, Dlugonski D, Suh Y, Fernhall B, Motl RW. The impact of gait disability on the calibration of accelerometer output in adults with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2011;13(4):170-176. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Schmidt A, Pennypacker ML, Thrush AH, Leiper CI, Craik RL. Validity of the StepWatch step activity monitor: preliminary findings for use in persons with Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. Jan 2011;34(1):41-45. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    142. Coote S, O'Dwyer C. Comparative validity of accelerometer-based measures of physical activity for people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 2012;93(11):2022-2028. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    143. Motl RW, McAuley E, Dlugonski D. Reactivity in baseline accelerometer data from a physical activity behavioral intervention. Health Psychol. Mar 2012;31(2):172-175. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    144. Pilutti LA, Dlugonski D, Pula JH, Motl RW. Weight status in persons with multiple sclerosis: implications for mobility outcomes. J Obes. 2012;2012:868256. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    145. Ranadive S, Yan H, Weikert M, Lane AD, Linden MA, Baynard T, et al. Vascular dysfunction and physical activity in multiple sclerosis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Feb 2012;44(2):238-243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Sandroff BM, Dlugonski D, Weikert M, Suh Y, Balantrapu S, Motl RW. Physical activity and multiple sclerosis: new insights regarding inactivity. Acta Neurol Scand. Oct 2012;126(4):256-262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    147. Sandroff BM, Motl RW, Suh Y. Accelerometer output and its association with energy expenditure in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(3):467-475. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    148. Sosnoff JJ, Sandroff BM, Pula JH, Morrison SM, Motl RW. Falls and physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2012;2012:315620. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    149. Sosnoff JJ, Socie MJ, Boes MK, Sandroff BM, Motl RW. Does a waist-worn ActiGraph accelerometer quantify community ambulation in persons with multiple sclerosis? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(9):1405-1410. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    150. Spain RI, St George RJ, Salarian A, Mancini M, Wagner JM, Horak FB, et al. Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed. Gait Posture. Apr 2012;35(4):573-578. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    151. Weikert M, Suh Y, Lane A, Sandroff B, Dlugonski D, Fernhall B, et al. Accelerometry is associated with walking mobility, not physical activity, in persons with multiple sclerosis. Med Eng Phys. Jun 2012;34(5):590-597. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    152. Yu F, Bilberg A, Stenager E, Rabotti C, Zhang B, Mischi M. A wireless body measurement system to study fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Physiol Meas. Dec 2012;33(12):2033-2048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Dlugonski D, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Suh Y, Balantrapu S, Motl RW. Steps per day among persons with multiple sclerosis: variation by demographic, clinical, and device characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 2013;94(8):1534-1539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    154. Filipović Grčić P, Matijaca M, Bilić I, Džamonja G, Lušić I, Čaljkušić K, et al. Correlation analysis of visual analogue scale and measures of walking ability in multiple sclerosis patients. Acta Neurol Belg. Dec 2013;113(4):397-402. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    155. Hilfiker R, Vaney C, Gattlen B, Meichtry A, Deriaz O, Lugon-Moulin V, et al. Local dynamic stability as a responsive index for the evaluation of rehabilitation effect on fall risk in patients with multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. BMC Res Notes. Jul 09, 2013;6:260. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    156. Huisinga JM, Mancini M, St George RJ, Horak FB. Accelerometry reveals differences in gait variability between patients with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls. Ann Biomed Eng. Aug 2013;41(8):1670-1679. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    157. Lamers I, Kerkhofs L, Raats J, Kos D, Van Wijmeersch B, Feys P. Perceived and actual arm performance in multiple sclerosis: relationship with clinical tests according to hand dominance. Mult Scler. Sep 2013;19(10):1341-1348. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    158. Learmonth YC, Dlugonski DD, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Motl RW. The reliability, precision and clinically meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Nov 2013;19(13):1784-1791. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    159. Morrison S, Sosnoff JJ, Sandroff BM, Pula JH, Motl RW. The dynamics of finger tremor in multiple sclerosis is affected by whole body position. J Neurol Sci. Jan 15, 2013;324(1-2):84-89. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    160. Motl RW, Pilutti L, Sandroff BM, Dlugonski D, Sosnoff JJ, Pula JH. Accelerometry as a measure of walking behavior in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. Jun 2013;127(6):384-390. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    161. Motl RW, Pilutti LA, Learmonth YC, Goldman MD, Brown T. Clinical importance of steps taken per day among persons with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. Sep 04, 2013;8(9):e73247. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    162. Sandroff BM, Motl RW. Comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors in persons with multiple sclerosis and controls. Disabil Rehabil. May 2013;35(9):725-731. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    163. Sandroff BM, Pilutti LA, Dlugonski D, Motl RW. Physical activity and information processing speed in persons with multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. Ment Health Phys Act. Oct 2013;6(3):205-211. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    164. Balantrapu S, Sosnoff JJ, Pula JH, Sandroff BM, Motl RW. Leg spasticity and ambulation in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2014;2014:649390. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    165. Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Ferrarin M. Quantitative assessment of upper limb motor function in multiple sclerosis using an instrumented action research arm test. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Apr 18, 2014;11:67. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    166. Huisinga JM, St George RJ, Spain R, Overs S, Horak FB. Postural response latencies are related to balance control during standing and walking in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jul 2014;95(7):1390-1397. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    167. Ickmans K, Simoens F, Nijs J, Kos D, Cras P, Willekens B, et al. Recovery of peripheral muscle function from fatiguing exercise and daily physical activity level in patients with multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. Jul 2014;122:97-105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    168. Motl RW, Learmonth YC, Pilutti LA, Dlugonski D, Klaren R. Validity of minimal clinically important difference values for the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12? Eur Neurol. 2014;71(3-4):196-202. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    169. Sandroff BM, Dlugonski D, Pilutti LA, Pula JH, Benedict RH, Motl RW. Physical activity is associated with cognitive processing speed in persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jan 2014;3(1):123-128. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    170. Sandroff BM, Motl RW, Kam JP, Pula JH. Accelerometer measured physical activity and the integrity of the anterior visual pathway in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jan 2014;3(1):117-122. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    171. Sandroff BM, Motl RW, Pilutti LA, Learmonth YC, Ensari I, Dlugonski D, et al. Accuracy of StepWatch™ and ActiGraph accelerometers for measuring steps taken among persons with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. Apr 08, 2014;9(4):e93511. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    172. Sandroff BM, Riskin BJ, Agiovlasitis S, Motl RW. Accelerometer cut-points derived during over-ground walking in persons with mild, moderate, and severe multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. May 15, 2014;340(1-2):50-57. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    173. Schwartz CE, Ayandeh A, Motl RW. Investigating the minimal important difference in ambulation in multiple sclerosis: a disconnect between performance-based and patient-reported outcomes? J Neurol Sci. Dec 15, 2014;347(1-2):268-274. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    174. Suh Y, Joshi I, Olsen C, Motl RW. Social cognitive predictors of physical activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Int J Behav Med. Dec 2014;21(6):891-898. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    175. Ayache SS, Chalah MA, Al-Ani T, Farhat WH, Zouari HG, Créange A, et al. Tremor in multiple sclerosis: the intriguing role of the cerebellum. J Neurol Sci. Nov 15, 2015;358(1-2):351-356. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    176. Blikman LJ, van Meeteren J, Horemans HL, Kortenhorst IC, Beckerman H, Stam HJ, et al. Is physical behavior affected in fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jan 2015;96(1):24-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    177. Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Ferrarin M. Hilbert-Huang transform based instrumental assessment of intention tremor in multiple sclerosis. J Neural Eng. Aug 2015;12(4):046011. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    178. Ezeugwu V, Klaren RE, A Hubbard E, Manns PT, Motl RW. Mobility disability and the pattern of accelerometer-derived sedentary and physical activity behaviors in people with multiple sclerosis. Prev Med Rep. Apr 01, 2015;2:241-246. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    179. Hubbard EA, Motl RW. Sedentary behavior is associated with disability status and walking performance, but not cognitive function, in multiple sclerosis. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. Feb 2015;40(2):203-206. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    180. Gong J, Engelhard MM, Goldman MD, Lach JC. Correlations between inertial body sensor measures and clinical measures in multiple sclerosis. In: Proceedings of the 10th EAI International Conference on Body Area Networks. Presented at: BodyNets '15; September 28-30, 2015, 2015;18-24; Sydney, Australia. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4108/eai.28-9-2015.2261504 [CrossRef]
    181. Kahraman T, Savci S, Coskuner-Poyraz E, Ozakbas S, Idiman E. Determinants of physical activity in minimally impaired people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. Nov 2015;138:20-24. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    182. Klaren RE, Hubbard EA, Motl RW, Pilutti LA, Wetter NC, Sutton BP. Objectively measured physical activity is associated with brain volumetric measurements in multiple sclerosis. Behav Neurol. 2015;2015:482536. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    183. Motl RW, Dlugonski D, Pilutti LA, Klaren RE. Does the effect of a physical activity behavioral intervention vary by characteristics of people with multiple sclerosis? Int J MS Care. Mar 2015;17(2):65-72. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    184. Rice IM, Rice LA, Motl RW. Promoting physical activity through a manual wheelchair propulsion intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Oct 2015;96(10):1850-1858. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    185. Sandroff BM, Klaren RE, Motl RW. Relationships among physical inactivity, deconditioning, and walking impairment in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Phys Ther. Apr 2015;39(2):103-110. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    186. Sandroff BM, Motl RW, Sosnoff JJ, Pula JH. Further validation of the Six-Spot Step Test as a measure of ambulation in multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture. Jan 2015;41(1):222-227. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    187. Sola-Valls N, Blanco Y, Sepúlveda M, Llufriu S, Martínez-Lapiscina EH, La Puma D, et al. Walking function in clinical monitoring of multiple sclerosis by telemedicine. J Neurol. Jul 2015;262(7):1706-1713. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    188. Stellmann JP, Neuhaus A, Götze N, Briken S, Lederer C, Schimpl M, et al. Ecological validity of walking capacity tests in multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. Apr 16, 2015;10(4):e0123822. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    189. Balto JM, Kinnett-Hopkins DL, Motl RW. Accuracy and precision of smartphone applications and commercially available motion sensors in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. Mar 04, 2016;2:2055217316634754. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    190. Gong J, Qi Y, Goldman MD, Lach J. Causality analysis of inertial body sensors for multiple sclerosis diagnostic enhancement. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Sep 2016;20(5):1273-1280. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    191. Klaren RE, Hubbard EA, Zhu W, Motl RW. Reliability of accelerometer scores for measuring sedentary and physical activity behaviors in persons with multiple sclerosis. Adapt Phys Activ Q. Apr 2016;33(2):195-204. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    192. Klaren RE, Sebastiao E, Chiu CY, Kinnett-Hopkins D, McAuley E, Motl RW. Levels and rates of physical activity in older adults with multiple sclerosis. Aging Dis. May 27, 2016;7(3):278-284. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    193. Pau M, Caggiari S, Mura A, Corona F, Leban B, Coghe G, et al. Clinical assessment of gait in individuals with multiple sclerosis using wearable inertial sensors: comparison with patient-based measure. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Nov 2016;10:187-191. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    194. Stellmann JP, Jlussi M, Neuhaus A, Lederer C, Daumer M, Heesen C. Fampridine and real-life walking in multiple sclerosis: low predictive value of clinical test for habitual short-term changes. J Neurol Sci. Sep 15, 2016;368:318-325. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    195. Qureshi A, Engelhard MM, Brandt-Pearce M, Goldman MD. Demonstrating the real-world significance of the mid-swing to heel strike part of the gait cycle using spectral features. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. Presented at: BSN '17; May 9-12, 2017, 2017;133-136; Eindhoven, Netherlands. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7936025 [CrossRef]
    196. Aburub A, Khalil H, Al-Sharman A, Alomari M, Khabour O. The association between physical activity and sleep characteristics in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Feb 2017;12:29-33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    197. Coulter EH, Miller L, McCorkell S, McGuire C, Algie K, Freeman J, et al. Validity of the activPAL3 activity monitor in people moderately affected by multiple sclerosis. Med Eng Phys. Jul 2017;45:78-82. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    198. Craig JJ, Bruetsch AP, Lynch SG, Huisinga JM. The relationship between trunk and foot acceleration variability during walking shows minor changes in persons with multiple sclerosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). Nov 2017;49:16-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    199. Dalla-Costa G, Radaelli M, Maida S, Sangalli F, Colombo B, Moiola L, et al. Smart watch, smarter EDSS: Improving disability assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical practice. J Neurol Sci. Dec 15, 2017;383:166-168. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    200. El-Gohary M, Peterson D, Gera G, Horak FB, Huisinga JM. Validity of the instrumented push and release test to quantify postural responses in persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jul 2017;98(7):1325-1331. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    201. Klaren RE, Hubbard EA, Wetter NC, Sutton BP, Motl RW. Objectively measured sedentary behavior and brain volumetric measurements in multiple sclerosis. Neurodegener Dis Manag. Feb 2017;7(1):31-37. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    202. Klaren RE, Sasaki JE, McAuley E, Motl RW. Patterns and predictors of change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity over time in multiple sclerosis. J Phys Act Health. Mar 2017;14(3):183-188. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    203. Krüger T, Behrens JR, Grobelny A, Otte K, Mansow-Model S, Kayser B, et al. Subjective and objective assessment of physical activity in multiple sclerosis and their relation to health-related quality of life. BMC Neurol. Jan 13, 2017;17(1):10. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    204. Lorefice L, Coghe G, Fenu G, Porta M, Pilloni G, Frau J, et al. 'Timed up and go' and brain atrophy: a preliminary MRI study to assess functional mobility performance in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. Nov 2017;264(11):2201-2204. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    205. McGinnis RS, Mahadevan N, Moon Y, Seagers K, Sheth N, Wright Jr JA, et al. A machine learning approach for gait speed estimation using skin-mounted wearable sensors: from healthy controls to individuals with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. Jun 01, 2017;12(6):e0178366. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    206. Motl RW, Sandroff BM, Pilutti LA, Klaren RE, Baynard T, Fernhall B. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and aerobic capacity in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. Jan 15, 2017;372:342-346. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    207. Norris M, Anderson R, Motl RW, Hayes S, Coote S. Minimum number of days required for a reliable estimate of daily step count and energy expenditure, in people with MS who walk unaided. Gait Posture. Mar 2017;53:201-206. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    208. Pau M, Mandaresu S, Pilloni G, Porta M, Coghe G, Marrosu MG, et al. Smoothness of gait detects early alterations of walking in persons with multiple sclerosis without disability. Gait Posture. Oct 2017;58:307-309. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    209. Sebastião E, Learmonth YC, Motl RW. Lower physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis at increased fall risk: a cross-sectional study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. May 2017;96(5):357-361. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    210. Sebastião E, Learmonth YC, Motl RW. Mobility measures differentiate falls risk status in persons with multiple sclerosis: an exploratory study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;40(1):153-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    211. Teufl S, Preston J, van Wijck F, Stansfield B. Objective identification of upper limb tremor in multiple sclerosis using a wrist-worn motion sensor: establishing validity and reliability. Br J Occup Ther. 2017;80(10):596-602. [CrossRef]
    212. Bernhard FP, Sartor J, Bettecken K, Hobert MA, Arnold C, Weber YG, et al. Wearables for gait and balance assessment in the neurological ward - study design and first results of a prospective cross-sectional feasibility study with 384 inpatients. BMC Neurol. Aug 16, 2018;18(1):114. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    213. Boukhvalova AK, Kowalczyk E, Harris T, Kosa P, Wichman A, Sandford MA, et al. Identifying and quantifying neurological disability via smartphone. Front Neurol. Sep 04, 2018;9:740. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    214. Carpinella I, Gervasoni E, Anastasi D, Lencioni T, Cattaneo D, Ferrarin M. Instrumental assessment of stair ascent in people with multiple sclerosis, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease: a wearable-sensor-based approach. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. Dec 2018;26(12):2324-2332. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    215. Cederberg KL, Motl RW, McAuley E. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and physical function in older adults with multiple sclerosis. J Aging Phys Act. Apr 01, 2018;26(2):177-182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    216. DasMahapatra P, Chiauzzi E, Bhalerao R, Rhodes J. Free-living physical activity monitoring in adult US patients with multiple sclerosis using a consumer wearable device. Digit Biomark. Apr 13, 2018;2(1):47-63. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    217. Engelhard MM, Patek SD, Lach JC, Goldman MD. Real-world walking in multiple sclerosis: separating capacity from behavior. Gait Posture. Jan 2018;59:211-216. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    218. Fakolade A, Finlayson M, Parsons T, Latimer-Cheung A. Correlating the physical activity patterns of people with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis disability and their family caregivers. Physiother Can. 2018;70(4):373-381. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    219. Findling O, Rust H, Yaldizli Ö, Timmermans DP, Scheltinga A, Allum JH. Balance changes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a pilot study comparing the dynamics of the relapse and remitting phases. Front Neurol. Aug 21, 2018;9:686. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    220. Ketelhut NB, Kindred JH, Pimentel RE, Hess AM, Tracy BL, Reiser RF, et al. Functional factors that are important correlates to physical activity in people with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. Oct 2018;40(20):2416-2423. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    221. Motl RW, Bollaert RE, Sandroff BM. Validation of the Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire classification coding system using accelerometry in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. Feb 2018;63(1):77-82. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    222. Neven A, Schutter ID, Wets G, Feys P, Janssens D. Data quality of travel behavior studies: factors influencing the reporting rate of self-reported and GPS-recorded trips in persons with disabilities. Transp Res Rec. 2018;2672(8):662-674. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    223. Pau M, Corona F, Pilloni G, Porta M, Coghe G, Cocco E. Texting while walking differently alters gait patterns in people with multiple sclerosis and healthy individuals. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jan 2018;19:129-133. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    224. Psarakis M, Greene DA, Cole MH, Lord SR, Hoang P, Brodie M. Wearable technology reveals gait compensations, unstable walking patterns and fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis. Physiol Meas. Jul 16, 2018;39(7):075004. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    225. Dandu SR, Engelhard MM, Qureshi A, Gong J, Lach JC, Brandt-Pearce M, et al. Understanding the physiological significance of four inertial gait features in multiple sclerosis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Jan 2018;22(1):40-46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    226. Sirhan B, Frid L, Kalron A. Is the dual-task cost of walking and texting unique in people with multiple sclerosis? J Neural Transm (Vienna). Dec 2018;125(12):1829-1835. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    227. Supratak A, Datta G, Gafson AR, Nicholas R, Guo Y, Matthews PM. Remote monitoring in the home validates clinical gait measures for multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. Jul 13, 2018;9:561. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    228. Witchel HJ, Oberndorfer C, Needham R, Healy A, Westling CE, Guppy JH, et al. Thigh-derived inertial sensor metrics to assess the Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit transitions in the Timed Up and Go (TUG) task for quantifying mobility impairment in multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. Sep 14, 2018;9:684. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    229. Anastasi D, Carpinella I, Gervasoni E, Matsuda PN, Bovi G, Ferrarin M, et al. Instrumented version of the modified dynamic gait index in patients with neurologic disorders. PM R. Dec 2019;11(12):1312-1319. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    230. Baird JF, Cederberg KL, Sikes EM, Silveira SL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, et al. Physical activity and walking performance across the lifespan among adults with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Oct 2019;35:36-41. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    231. Block VJ, Zhao C, Hollenbach JA, Olgin JE, Marcus GM, Pletcher MJ, et al. Validation of a consumer-grade activity monitor for continuous daily activity monitoring in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. Nov 21, 2019;5(4):2055217319888660. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    232. Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Braley TJ, Walters AS, Motl RW. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and restless legs syndrome in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. Dec 15, 2019;407:116531. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    233. Chitnis T, Glanz BI, Gonzalez C, Healy BC, Saraceno TJ, Sattarnezhad N, et al. Quantifying neurologic disease using biosensor measurements in-clinic and in free-living settings in multiple sclerosis. NPJ Digit Med. Dec 11, 2019;2:123. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    234. Flachenecker F, Gaßner H, Hannik J, Lee DH, Flachenecker P, Winkler J, et al. Objective sensor-based gait measures reflect motor impairment in multiple sclerosis patients: reliability and clinical validation of a wearable sensor device. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Apr 2020;39:101903. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    235. Grinberg Y, Berkowitz S, Hershkovitz L, Malcay O, Kalron A. The ability of the instrumented tandem walking tests to discriminate fully ambulatory people with MS from healthy adults. Gait Posture. May 2019;70:90-94. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    236. Kratz AL, Fritz NE, Braley TJ, Scott EL, Foxen-Craft E, Murphy SL. Daily temporal associations between physical activity and symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Ann Behav Med. Jan 01, 2019;53(1):98-108. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    237. Motl RW, Sasaki JE, Cederberg KL, Jeng B. Social-cognitive theory variables as correlates of sedentary behavior in multiple sclerosis: preliminary evidence. Disabil Health J. Oct 2019;12(4):622-627. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    238. Motl RW, Sasaki JE, Cederberg KL, Jeng B. Validity of sitting time scores from the international physical activity questionnaire-short form in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. Nov 2019;64(4):463-468. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    239. Bollaert RE, Motl RW. Self-efficacy and physical and cognitive function in older adults with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. Mar 2019;21(2):63-69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    240. Rooney S, Riemenschneider M, Dalgas U, Jørgensen MK, Michelsen AS, Brønd JC, et al. Physical activity is associated with neuromuscular and physical function in patients with multiple sclerosis independent of disease severity. Disabil Rehabil. Mar 2021;43(5):632-639. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    241. Sasaki JE, Motl RW, McAuley E. Validity of the Marshall sitting questionnaire in people with multiple sclerosis. J Sports Sci. Jun 2019;37(11):1250-1256. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    242. Akhbardeh A, Arjona JK, Krysko KM, Nourbakhsh B, Gourraud PA, Graves JS. Novel MS vital sign: multi-sensor captures upper and lower limb dysfunction. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. Mar 2020;7(3):288-295. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    243. Bourke AK, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, Gossens C, Lindemann M. Gait characteristics harvested during a smartphone-based self-administered 2-minute walk test in people with multiple sclerosis: test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change. Sensors (Basel). Oct 19, 2020;20(20):5906. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    244. Brull A, Zubizarreta A, Cabanes I, Rodriguez-Larrad A. Sensorized tip for monitoring people with multiple sclerosis that require assistive devices for walking. Sensors (Basel). Aug 03, 2020;20(15):4329. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    245. Cofré Lizama LE, Bruijn SM, Galea MP. Gait stability at early stages of multiple sclerosis using different data sources. Gait Posture. Mar 2020;77:214-217. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    246. Craig JJ, Bruetsch AP, Lynch SG, Huisinga JM. Trunk and foot acceleration variability during walking relates to fall history and clinical disability in persons with multiple sclerosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). Dec 2020;80:105100. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    247. Hibner BA, Hilgenkamp TI, Schroeder EC, Motl RW, Bollaert RE, Griffith G, et al. Physical activity and peak oxygen consumption are associated with walking in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. May 2020;40:101941. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    248. Huang SC, Dalla Costa G, Pisa M, Gregoris L, Leccabue G, Congiu M, et al. The danger of walking with socks: evidence from kinematic analysis in people with progressive multiple sclerosis. Sensors (Basel). Oct 29, 2020;20(21):6160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    249. Daunoraviciene K, Ziziene J, Griskevicius J, Kizlaitiene R, Ovcinikova A. Biomechanical markers of impaired motor coordination. In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference Mechatronic Systems and Materials. Presented at: MSM '20; July 1-3, 2020, 2020;1-6; Bialystok, Poland. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9201642 [CrossRef]
    250. Daunoraviciene K, Ziziene J, Ovcinikova A, Kizlaitiene R, Griskevicius J. Quantitative body symmetry assessment during neurological examination. Technol Health Care. 2020;28(5):573-584. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    251. Mate KK, Mayo NE. Clinically assessed walking capacity versus real-world walking performance in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. May 2020;22(3):143-150. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    252. Lam KH, Meijer KA, Loonstra FC, Coerver E, Twose J, Redeman E, et al. Real-world keystroke dynamics are a potentially valid biomarker for clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Aug 2021;27(9):1421-1431. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    253. Meyer BM, Tulipani LJ, Gurchiek RD, Allen DA, Adamowicz L, Larie D, et al. Wearables and deep learning classify fall risk from gait in multiple sclerosis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. May 2021;25(5):1824-1831. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    254. Næss-Schmidt E, Pedersen A, Christiansen D, Andersen N, Brincks J, Grimm B, et al. Daily activity and functional performance in people with chronic disease: a cross-sectional study. Cogent Med. Jan 9, 2020;7(1):1713280. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    255. Neal WN, Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Motl RW. Is symptomatic fatigue associated with physical activity and sedentary behaviors among persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. Jun 2020;34(6):505-511. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    256. Pilloni G, Choi C, Shaw MT, Coghe G, Krupp L, Moffat M, et al. Walking in multiple sclerosis improves with tDCS: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. Nov 2020;7(11):2310-2319. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    257. Sandroff BM, Motl RW. Device-measured physical activity and cognitive processing speed impairment in a large sample of persons with multiple sclerosis? J Int Neuropsychol Soc. Sep 2020;26(8):798-805. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    258. Sato S, Lim J, Miehm JD, Buonaccorsi J, Rajala C, Khalighinejad F, et al. Rapid foot-tapping but not hand-tapping ability is different between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jun 2020;41:102031. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    259. Shah VV, McNames J, Mancini M, Carlson-Kuhta P, Spain RI, Nutt JG, et al. Laboratory versus daily life gait characteristics in patients with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and matched controls. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Dec 01, 2020;17(1):159. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    260. Shalmoni N, Kalron A. The immediate effect of stroboscopic visual training on information-processing time in people with multiple sclerosis: an exploratory study. J Neural Transm (Vienna). Aug 2020;127(8):1125-1131. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    261. Shema-Shiratzky S, Hillel I, Mirelman A, Regev K, Hsieh KL, Karni A, et al. A wearable sensor identifies alterations in community ambulation in multiple sclerosis: contributors to real-world gait quality and physical activity. J Neurol. Jul 2020;267(7):1912-1921. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    262. Twose J, Licitra G, McConchie H, Lam KH, Killestein J. Early-warning signals for disease activity in patients diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on keystroke dynamics. Chaos. Nov 2020;30(11):113133. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    263. Shah VV, McNames J, Mancini M, Carlson-Kuhta P, Spain RI, Nutt JG, et al. Quantity and quality of gait and turning in people with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and matched controls during daily living. J Neurol. Apr 2020;267(4):1188-1196. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    264. Zhai Y, Nasseri N, Pöttgen J, Gezhelbash E, Heesen C, Stellmann JP. Smartphone accelerometry: a smart and reliable measurement of real-life physical activity in multiple sclerosis and healthy individuals. Front Neurol. Aug 14, 2020;11:688. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    265. Abonie US, Hettinga FJ. Effect of a tailored activity pacing intervention on fatigue and physical activity behaviours in adults with multiple sclerosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 22, 2020;18(1):17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    266. Abonie US, Saxton J, Baker K, Hettinga FJ. Objectively-assessed physical activity and self-reported activity pacing in adults with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Clin Rehabil. Dec 2021;35(12):1781-1788. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    267. Adam V, Havlík J. Parameterization of the tremor signal from accelerometers in multiple sclerosis. In: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Applied Electronics. Presented at: AE '21; September 7-1, 2021, 2021;1-4; Pilsen, Czech Republic. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.23919/AE51540.2021.9542904 [CrossRef]
    268. Allum JH, Rust HM, Lutz N, Schouenborg C, Fischer-Barnicol B, Haller V, et al. Characteristics of improvements in balance control using vibro-tactile biofeedback of trunk sway for multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol Sci. Jun 15, 2021;425:117432. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    269. Anens E, Ahlström I, Emtner M, Zetterberg L, Nilsagård Y, Hellström K. Validity and reliability of physical activity measures in multiple sclerosis. Physiother Theory Pract. Jan 2023;39(1):137-153. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    270. Atrsaei A, Dadashi F, Mariani B, Gonzenbach R, Aminian K. Toward a remote assessment of walking bout and speed: application in patients with multiple sclerosis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Nov 2021;25(11):4217-4228. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    271. Barrios L, Oldrati P, Hilty M, Lindlbauer D, Holz C, Lutterotti A. Smartphone-based tapping frequency as a surrogate for perceived fatigue: an in-the-wild feasibility study in multiple sclerosis patients. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. Sep 14, 2021;5(3):1-30. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    272. Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Sikes EM, Cutter G, Motl RW. Physical activity and self-reported sleep quality in adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. Oct 2021;14(4):101133. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    273. Cederberg KL, Walters AS, Amara AW, Braley TJ, Schuetz ML, Mathison BG, et al. Validity and reliability of the suggested immobilization test for measurement of restless legs syndrome severity in adults with multiple sclerosis. Sleep Med. Aug 2021;84:343-351. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    274. Cheng W, Bourke AK, Lipsmeier F, Bernasconi C, Belachew S, Gossens C, et al. U-turn speed is a valid and reliable smartphone-based measure of multiple sclerosis-related gait and balance impairment. Gait Posture. Feb 2021;84:120-126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    275. Creagh AP, Simillion C, Bourke AK, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, Bernasconi C, et al. Smartphone- and smartwatch-based remote characterisation of ambulation in multiple sclerosis during the two-minute walk test. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Mar 2021;25(3):838-849. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    276. Di Giovanni R, Solaro C, Grange E, Masuccio FG, Brichetto G, Mueller M, et al. A comparison of upper limb function in subjects with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls using an inertial measurement unit. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Aug 2021;53:103036. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    277. Eldemir K, Guclu-Gunduz A, Ozkul C, Eldemir S, Soke F, Irkec C. Associations between fatigue and physical behavior in patients with multiple sclerosis with no or minimal disability. Fatigue Biomed Health Behav. May 05, 2021;9(2):69-78. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    278. Gulde P, Hermsdörfer J, Rieckmann P. Inpatient rehabilitation: prediction of changes in sensorimotor performance in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. J Clin Med. May 18, 2021;10(10):2177. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    279. Gulde P, Hermsdörfer J, Rieckmann P. Speed but not smoothness of gait reacts to rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. Jun 03, 2021;2021:5589562. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    280. Hildebrand A, Jacobs PG, Folsom JG, Mosquera-Lopez C, Wan E, Cameron MH. Comparing fall detection methods in people with multiple sclerosis: a prospective observational cohort study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Nov 2021;56:103270. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    281. Hsieh KL, Sosnoff JJ. Smartphone accelerometry to assess postural control in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture. Feb 2021;84:114-119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    282. Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Cederberg KL, Motl RW. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates of device-measured sedentary behaviour in multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. Jan 2021;43(1):42-48. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    283. Khalil H, Aburub A, Kanaan SF, AlSharman A, Khazaaleh S, Al Qawasmeh M, et al. Convergent and criterion-related validity of the short form of the international physical activity and the incidental and planned physical activity questionnaires in people with multiple sclerosis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2021;49(4):597-606. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    284. Pau M, Porta M, Coghe G, Cocco E. What gait features influence the amount and intensity of physical activity in people with multiple sclerosis? Medicine (Baltimore). Mar 05, 2021;100(9):e24931. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    285. Motl RW, Baird JF. Cardiorespiratory fitness and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in older adults with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. Nov 23, 2021;7(4):20552173211057514. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    286. Müller R, Hamacher D, Hansen S, Oschmann P, Keune PM. Wearable inertial sensors are highly sensitive in the detection of gait disturbances and fatigue at early stages of multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. Sep 04, 2021;21(1):337. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    287. Nagasubramony A, Player RF, Westling CE, Galvin K, Witchel HJ. Using wearable inertial sensors to detect different strategies for the sit-to-stand transition in multiple sclerosis. In: Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Presented at: ECCE '21; April 26-29, 2021, 2021;1-4; Siena, Italy. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3452853.3452862 [CrossRef]
    288. Negaresh R, Gharakhanlou R, Sahraian MA, Abolhasani M, Motl RW, Zimmer P. Physical activity may contribute to brain health in multiple sclerosis: an MR volumetric and spectroscopy study. J Neuroimaging. Jul 2021;31(4):714-723. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    289. Pau M, Leban B, Deidda M, Porta M, Coghe G, Cattaneo D, et al. Use of wrist-worn accelerometers to quantify bilateral upper limb activity and asymmetry under free-living conditions in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Aug 2021;53:103081. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    290. Prochazka A, Dostal O, Cejnar P, Mohamed HI, Pavelek Z, Valis M, et al. Deep learning for accelerometric data assessment and ataxic gait monitoring. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:360-367. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    291. Sagawa Y, Watelain E, Moulin T, Decavel P. Physical activity during weekdays and weekends in persons with multiple sclerosis. Sensors (Basel). May 22, 2021;21(11):3617. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    292. Shah VV, McNames J, Harker G, Curtze C, Carlson-Kuhta P, Spain RI, et al. Does gait bout definition influence the ability to discriminate gait quality between people with and without multiple sclerosis during daily life? Gait Posture. Feb 2021;84:108-113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    293. Silveira SL, Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sikes EM, Sandroff BM, Jones CD, et al. Do physical activity and social cognitive theory variable scores differ across symptom cluster severity groups in multiple sclerosis? Disabil Health J. Oct 2021;14(4):101163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    294. Silveira SL, Baird JF, Motl RW. Rates, patterns, and correlates of fitness tracker use among older adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. Jan 2021;14(1):100966. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    295. Swanson CW, Richmond SB, Sharp BE, Fling BW. Middle-age people with multiple sclerosis demonstrate similar mobility characteristics to neurotypical older adults. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jun 2021;51:102924. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    296. Tanoh IC, Maillart E, Labauge P, Cohen M, Maarouf A, Vukusic S, et al. MSCopilot: new smartphone-based digital biomarkers correlate with expanded disability status scale scores in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Oct 2021;55:103164. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    297. Teufl S, Preston J, van Wijck F, Stansfield B. Quantifying upper limb tremor in people with multiple sclerosis using Fast Fourier Transform based analysis of wrist accelerometer signals. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. Feb 03, 2021;8:2055668320966955. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    298. Trentzsch K, Melzer B, Stölzer-Hutsch H, Haase R, Bartscht P, Meyer P, et al. Automated analysis of the two-minute walk test in clinical practice using accelerometer data. Brain Sci. Nov 13, 2021;11(11):1507. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    299. Weed L, Little C, Kasser SL, McGinnis RS. A preliminary investigation of the effects of obstacle negotiation and turning on gait variability in adults with multiple sclerosis. Sensors (Basel). Aug 28, 2021;21(17):5806. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    300. Afzal T, Zhu F, Tseng SC, Lincoln JA, Francisco GE, Su H, et al. Evaluation of muscle synergy during exoskeleton-assisted walking in persons with multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. Oct 2022;69(10):3265-3274. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    301. Alexander S, Braisher M, Tur C, Chataway J. The mSteps pilot study: analysis of the distance walked using a novel smartphone application in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Dec 2022;28(14):2285-2293. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    302. Arpan I, Shah VV, McNames J, Harker G, Carlson-Kuhta P, Spain R, et al. Fall prediction based on instrumented measures of gait and turning in daily life in people with multiple sclerosis. Sensors (Basel). Aug 09, 2022;22(16):5940. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    303. Berg-Hansen P, Moen SM, Austeng A, Gonzales V, Klyve TD, Negård H, et al. Sensor-based gait analyses of the six-minute walk test identify qualitative improvement in gait parameters of people with multiple sclerosis after rehabilitation. J Neurol. Jul 2022;269(7):3723-3734. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    304. Block VJ, Pitsch EA, Gopal A, Zhao C, Pletcher MJ, Marcus GM, et al. Identifying falls remotely in people with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. Apr 2022;269(4):1889-1898. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    305. Block VJ, Waliman M, Xie Z, Akula A, Bove R, Pletcher MJ, et al. Making every step count: minute-by-minute characterization of step counts augments remote activity monitoring in people with multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. May 23, 2022;13:860008. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    306. Bois A, Tervil B, Moreau A, Vienne-Jumeau A, Ricard D, Oudre L. A topological data analysis-based method for gait signals with an application to the study of multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. May 13, 2022;17(5):e0268475. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    307. Carpinella I, Anastasi D, Gervasoni E, Di Giovanni R, Tacchino A, Brichetto G, et al. Balance impairments in people with early-stage multiple sclerosis: boosting the integration of instrumented assessment in clinical practice. Sensors (Basel). Dec 06, 2022;22(23):9558. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    308. Carpinella I, Gervasoni E, Anastasi D, Di Giovanni R, Tacchino A, Brichetto G, et al. Walking with horizontal head turns is impaired in persons with early-stage multiple sclerosis showing normal locomotion. Front Neurol. Jan 28, 2021;12:821640. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    309. Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Motl RW. Physical activity and sedentary behavior timing in fatigued and nonfatigued adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Sep 2022;103(9):1758-1765. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    310. Chikersal P, Venkatesh S, Masown K, Walker E, Quraishi D, Dey A, et al. Predicting multiple sclerosis outcomes during the COVID-19 stay-at-home period: observational study using passively sensed behaviors and digital phenotyping. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 24, 2022;9(8):e38495. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    311. Drouin P, Stamm A, Chevreuil L, Graillot V, Barbin L, Gourraud PA, et al. Semi-supervised clustering of quaternion time series: application to gait analysis in multiple sclerosis using motion sensor data. Stat Med. Feb 20, 2023;42(4):433-456. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    312. Gervasoni E, Anastasi D, Di Giovanni R, Solaro C, Rovaris M, Brichetto G, et al. Physical activity in non-disabled people with early multiple sclerosis: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Aug 2022;64:103941. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    313. Graves JS, Ganzetti M, Dondelinger F, Lipsmeier F, Belachew S, Bernasconi C, et al. Preliminary validity of the Draw a Shape Test for upper extremity assessment in multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. Feb 2023;10(2):166-180. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    314. Hossen A, Anwar AR, Koirala N, Ding H, Budker D, Wickenbrock A, et al. Machine learning aided classification of tremor in multiple sclerosis. EBioMedicine. Aug 2022;82:104152. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    315. Huynh T, Jeng B, Motl RW. Physical activity and vascular comorbidity in Black and White persons with multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study. Disabil Health J. Jul 2022;15(3):101314. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    316. Hvid LG, Stenager E, Dalgas U. Objectively assessed physiological, physical, and cognitive function along with patient-reported outcomes during the first 2 years of Alemtuzumab treatment in multiple sclerosis: a prospective observational study. J Neurol. Sep 2022;269(9):4895-4908. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    317. Ibrahim AA, Flachenecker F, Gaßner H, Rothhammer V, Klucken J, Eskofier BM, et al. Short inertial sensor-based gait tests reflect perceived state fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Feb 2022;58:103519. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    318. Jeng B, Cederberg KL, Huynh TL, Silic P, Jones CD, Feasel CD, et al. Social cognitive theory variables as correlates of physical activity in fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jan 2022;57:103312. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    319. Jeng B, Šilić P, Huynh TL, Motl RW. Sedentary behavior and lower-extremity physical function across the lifespan of adults with multiple sclerosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Sep 30, 2022;19(19):12466. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    320. Jones CD, Jeng B, Silic P, Motl RW. Do device-measured physical activity and sedentary behavior differ by depression symptom status in persons with multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jul 2022;63:103889. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    321. Keller JL, Tian F, Fitzgerald KC, Mische L, Ritter J, Costello MG, et al. Using real-world accelerometry-derived diurnal patterns of physical activity to evaluate disability in multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. Jan 12, 2022;9:20556683211067362. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    322. Kim J, Bollaert RE, Cerna J, Adamson BC, Robbs CM, Khan NA, et al. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is related with retinal neuronal and axonal integrity in persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. Dec 2022;36(12):810-815. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    323. Kinnett-Hopkins D, Motl R. Social cognitive correlates of device-measured and self-reported physical activity in Black and White individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. May 27, 2022:101344. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    324. Lam KH, Twose J, Lissenberg-Witte B, Licitra G, Meijer K, Uitdehaag B, et al. The use of smartphone keystroke dynamics to passively monitor upper limb and cognitive function in multiple sclerosis: longitudinal analysis. J Med Internet Res. Nov 07, 2022;24(11):e37614. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    325. Lam KH, Twose J, McConchie H, Licitra G, Meijer K, de Ruiter L, et al. Smartphone-derived keystroke dynamics are sensitive to relevant changes in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. Feb 2022;29(2):522-534. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    326. LEBLANC R, DECAVEL P, CASSIRAME J, TORDI N, MOULIN T, SAGAWA Y. Personalized accelerometer cutoffs to evaluate moderate to vigorous physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility study. Gazz Med Ital Arch Sci Med. Mar 2022;181(3) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    327. Marotta N, de Sire A, Marinaro C, Moggio L, Inzitari MT, Russo I, et al. Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on balance and gait in multiple sclerosis patients: a machine learning approach. J Clin Med. Jun 17, 2022;11(12):3505. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    328. Meyer BM, Depetrillo P, Franco J, Donahue N, Fox SR, O'Leary A, et al. How much data is enough? A reliable methodology to examine long-term wearable data acquisition in gait and postural sway. Sensors (Basel). Sep 15, 2022;22(18):6982. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    329. Motl RW, Sandroff BM, Benedict RH. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is associated with processing speed, but not learning and memory, in cognitively impaired persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Jul 2022;63:103833. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    330. Salomon A, Galperin I, Buzaglo D, Mirelman A, Regev K, Karni A, et al. Fragmentation, circadian amplitude, and fractal pattern of daily-living physical activity in people with multiple sclerosis: is there relevant information beyond the total amount of physical activity? Mult Scler Relat Disord. Dec 2022;68:104108. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    331. Sandroff BM, Motl RW, Amato MP, Brichetto G, Chataway J, Chiaravalloti ND, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and free-living physical activity are not associated with cognition in persons with progressive multiple sclerosis: baseline analyses from the CogEx study. Mult Scler. Jun 2022;28(7):1091-1100. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    332. Sato SD, Hiroi Y, Zoppo D, Buonaccorsi J, Miehm JD, van Emmerik RE. Spatiotemporal gait changes in people with multiple sclerosis with different disease progression subtypes. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). Dec 2022;100:105818. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    333. Scott K, Bonci T, Salis F, Alcock L, Buckley E, Gazit E, et al. Mobilise-D consortium. Design and validation of a multi-task, multi-context protocol for real-world gait simulation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. Dec 16, 2022;19(1):141. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    334. Shah VV, Curtze C, Sowalsky K, Arpan I, Mancini M, Carlson-Kuhta P, et al. Inertial sensor algorithm to estimate walk distance. Sensors (Basel). Jan 29, 2022;22(3):1077. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    335. Sun S, Folarin AA, Zhang Y, Cummins N, Liu S, Stewart C, et al. RADAR-CNS consortium. The utility of wearable devices in assessing ambulatory impairments of people with multiple sclerosis in free-living conditions. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. Dec 2022;227:107204. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    336. Tønning LU, Mechlenburg I, Christiansen DH, Andersen NV, Stabel HH, Pedersen AR, et al. Disability and physical activity in people with chronic disease receiving physiotherapy. A prospective cohort study. Front Sports Act Living. Sep 23, 2022;4:1006422. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    337. Tulipani LJ, Meyer B, Fox S, Solomon AJ, Mcginnis RS. The Sit-to-Stand transition as a biomarker for impairment: comparison of instrumented 30-second chair stand test and daily life transitions in multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2022;30:1213-1222. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    338. Chen S, Sierra S, Shin Y, Goldman MD. Gait speed trajectory during the six-minute walk test in multiple sclerosis: a measure of walking endurance. Front Neurol. Jul 26, 2021;12:698599. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    339. Motl RW, Cohen JA, Benedict R, Phillips G, LaRocca N, Hudson LD, et al. Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Assessments Consortium. Validity of the timed 25-foot walk as an ambulatory performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Apr 2017;23(5):704-710. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    340. Sebastião E, Sandroff BM, Learmonth YC, Motl RW. Validity of the timed up and go test as a measure of functional mobility in persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jul 2016;97(7):1072-1077. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    341. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 1992;73(11):1073-1080. [Medline]
    342. Hooper J, Taylor R, Pentland B, Whittle IR. Rater reliability of Fahn's tremor rating scale in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Sep 1998;79(9):1076-1079. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    343. Kayes NM, Schluter PJ, McPherson KM, Taylor D, Kolt GS. The Physical Activity and Disability Survey -- Revised (PADS-R): an evaluation of a measure of physical activity in people with chronic neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil. Jun 2009;23(6):534-543. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    344. Brenner PS, DeLamater JD. Social desirability bias in self-reports of physical activity: is an exercise identity the culprit? Soc Indic Res. Jun 1, 2013;117(2):489-504. [CrossRef]
    345. Rasova K, Martinkova P, Vyskotova J, Sedova M. Assessment set for evaluation of clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis: psychometric properties. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:59-70. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    346. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Ebers GC. Interrater variability with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Functional Systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. The Canadian Cooperation MS Study Group. Neurology. Jun 1990;40(6):971-975. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    347. Chandrabhatla AS, Pomeraniec IJ, Ksendzovsky A. Co-evolution of machine learning and digital technologies to improve monitoring of Parkinson's disease motor symptoms. NPJ Digit Med. Mar 18, 2022;5(1):32. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    348. VanSwearingen JM, Studenski SA. Aging, motor skill, and the energy cost of walking: implications for the prevention and treatment of mobility decline in older persons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Nov 2014;69(11):1429-1436. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    349. Frechette ML, Meyer BM, Tulipani LJ, Gurchiek RD, McGinnis RS, Sosnoff JJ. Next steps in wearable technology and community ambulation in multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. Sep 04, 2019;19(10):80. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    350. Let's build from here. GitHub. URL: https://github.com/ [accessed 2022-12-15]
    351. Ratliff J. Docker: accelerated, containerized application development. Docker. 2022. URL: https://www.docker.com/ [accessed 2022-12-15]
    352. EUDAT - research data services, expertise and technology solutions. EUDAT Collaborative Data Infrastructure. URL: https://www.eudat.eu/ [accessed 2022-12-15]
    353. Home page. Zenodo. URL: https://zenodo.org/ [accessed 2022-12-15]
    354. Solomonovich S. Dryad. Vancouver, BC. Sonya Solomonovich; 2013.
    355. IEEE. IEEE DataPort. J Microelectromech Syst. Aug 2019;28(4):739. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    356. Stupple A, Singerman D, Celi LA. The reproducibility crisis in the age of digital medicine. NPJ Digit Med. Jan 29, 2019;2:2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    357. Bell P, Beer B. Introducing GitHub: A Non-Technical Guide. Springfield, MO. O′Reilly; 2014.
    358. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. Mar 15, 2016;3:160018. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    359. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1996. URL: https:/​/www.​cdc.gov/​phlp/​publications/​topic/​hipaa.​html#:~:text=The%20Health%20Insurance%20Portability%20and,the%20patient's%20consent%20or%20knowledge [accessed 2023-06-28]
    360. Victor JM. The EU general data protection regulation: toward a property regime for protecting data privacy. Yale Law J. 2013;123(2):513-528. [FREE Full text]
    361. US National Library of Medicine. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov [accessed 2022-12-15]

    ‎
    2MWT: 2-minute walking test
    EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale
    MS: multiple sclerosis
    PDDS: Patient Determined Disease Steps
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    T25FW: timed 25-foot walking test
    TUG: timed up and go

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 18.11.22; peer-reviewed by L Masanneck, A Keogh; comments to author 05.12.22; revised version received 19.12.22; accepted 04.05.23; published 27.07.23.

    Copyright

    ©Tim Woelfle, Lucie Bourguignon, Johannes Lorscheider, Ludwig Kappos, Yvonne Naegelin, Catherine Ruth Jutzeler. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.07.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.