Ion[27][21]Vertical Patterns Circular Patterns Horizontal Patterns[34] [34] [34]doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123705.tsimply representative of age-related and/or speed-related factors. Identifying all potential confounders in this type of research and reporting how they have been accounted for in the analyses is critical to ensuring that any changes in outcome can be confidently attributed to the treatment or disease of interest. Collectively, the results of the methodological quality assessment identifiedPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123705 April 20,16 /Wearable Sensors for Assessing Balance and Gait in Parkinson’s Diseasethat issues related to internal and external (-)-Blebbistatin site validity, as well as statistical power are typically poorly reported in the literature. It should be emphasised that this does not suggest that the authors did not consider some or all of these factors, but TSAMedChemExpress TSA rather suggests that these areas should be given more attention in the reporting of future research. To improve the overall methodological quality of research in this area, it is recommended that scientists use existing research reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, STROBE) when designing and planning the reporting of their studies. Despite the outlined shortcomings in the reporting of the methods, 81 of the studies described differences between different PD groups and/or a healthy control group for one or more of their sensor-based measures of standing balance or walking stability [13, 14, 17?2, 25?7, 29?7, 39, 40]. However, contradictory findings reported in separate studies suggest that some of the reported outcomes may be more robust than others. For example, two studies that compared PD patients with controls using a standing balance assessment reported no significant differences between the groups for jerk scores [37, 38], while three others reported significantly greater jerk scores for PD patients [13, 25, 26]. Similarly, two studies reported no differences between people with PD and controls for RMS accelerations [24, 38], while three studies reported significantly greater RMS accelerations for PD patients [13, 25, 26]. Sway velocity was another common measure used to evaluate standing balance, but similarly only three studies [25, 26, 33] reported differences between people with PD and controls, while the remaining three did not [13, 32, 38]. It is interesting to note, however, that contradictory findings were presented by the three studies reporting differences between patients and controls for sway velocity, as one study reported reduced values for PD patients while standing with eyes closed [33], while the others reported greater values for people with PD while standing with eyes open [25, 26], but not eyes closed [26]. While each of the studies that assessed standing balance derived their outcomes from a wearable sensor positioned on the trunk [13, 24?6, 32, 33, 37, 38], there were some methodological differences that may explain the discrepancies observed between the studies’ reported outcomes. The studies unable to report significant differences in jerk scores, RMS accelerations and sway velocities assessed standing balance using a semi-tandem stance test [38], the Sensory Organisation Test [24], the Romberg test [32] or an instrumented version of the functional reach test [37]. In contrast, the studies that reported significant differences for jerk, RMS accelerations and sway velocities assessed participants during quiet standing with the heels separat.Ion[27][21]Vertical Patterns Circular Patterns Horizontal Patterns[34] [34] [34]doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123705.tsimply representative of age-related and/or speed-related factors. Identifying all potential confounders in this type of research and reporting how they have been accounted for in the analyses is critical to ensuring that any changes in outcome can be confidently attributed to the treatment or disease of interest. Collectively, the results of the methodological quality assessment identifiedPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123705 April 20,16 /Wearable Sensors for Assessing Balance and Gait in Parkinson’s Diseasethat issues related to internal and external validity, as well as statistical power are typically poorly reported in the literature. It should be emphasised that this does not suggest that the authors did not consider some or all of these factors, but rather suggests that these areas should be given more attention in the reporting of future research. To improve the overall methodological quality of research in this area, it is recommended that scientists use existing research reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, STROBE) when designing and planning the reporting of their studies. Despite the outlined shortcomings in the reporting of the methods, 81 of the studies described differences between different PD groups and/or a healthy control group for one or more of their sensor-based measures of standing balance or walking stability [13, 14, 17?2, 25?7, 29?7, 39, 40]. However, contradictory findings reported in separate studies suggest that some of the reported outcomes may be more robust than others. For example, two studies that compared PD patients with controls using a standing balance assessment reported no significant differences between the groups for jerk scores [37, 38], while three others reported significantly greater jerk scores for PD patients [13, 25, 26]. Similarly, two studies reported no differences between people with PD and controls for RMS accelerations [24, 38], while three studies reported significantly greater RMS accelerations for PD patients [13, 25, 26]. Sway velocity was another common measure used to evaluate standing balance, but similarly only three studies [25, 26, 33] reported differences between people with PD and controls, while the remaining three did not [13, 32, 38]. It is interesting to note, however, that contradictory findings were presented by the three studies reporting differences between patients and controls for sway velocity, as one study reported reduced values for PD patients while standing with eyes closed [33], while the others reported greater values for people with PD while standing with eyes open [25, 26], but not eyes closed [26]. While each of the studies that assessed standing balance derived their outcomes from a wearable sensor positioned on the trunk [13, 24?6, 32, 33, 37, 38], there were some methodological differences that may explain the discrepancies observed between the studies’ reported outcomes. The studies unable to report significant differences in jerk scores, RMS accelerations and sway velocities assessed standing balance using a semi-tandem stance test [38], the Sensory Organisation Test [24], the Romberg test [32] or an instrumented version of the functional reach test [37]. In contrast, the studies that reported significant differences for jerk, RMS accelerations and sway velocities assessed participants during quiet standing with the heels separat.