Alance and walking stability is provided in Table 2.DiscussionThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the existing literature to determine the best types of wearable sensors and the most appropriate anatomical placements and outcome measures to assess deficits in balance and gait between people with PD and controls. Using the methodological quality assessment tool adapted from Downs and Black [41], it was determined that the overall quality of scientific FT011 cancer reporting in this area is largely of low to moderate quality. In general, the reviewed papers were lacking details PX-478 manufacturer concerning the representativeness of the study population (external validity), the approaches adopted to identify and account for confounding variables (internal validity) and an appropriate justification for the chosen sample size. Interestingly, 62 of the included studies received a score of zero for all of the criteria related to at least two of these three areas, while one study (4 ) received a score of zero for all three of these areas. The heavier weighting attributed to the sample size criterion is indicative of the importance of ensuring that a study has sufficient statistical power to identify a difference where one exists and, hence, minimise the likelihood of incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis (i.e. Type II error) [42]. Of the 26 studies included in this review, not one reported the results of a sample size calculation, but 13 (50 ) had fewer than 15 participants in each of their groups [13, 19?1, 23?8, 32, 34, 39] and three others (12 ) had at least one group with fewer than this number [29, 37, 38]. While it is important to emphasise that a large sample size is not always required to address a specific research question, reporting the outcome of an appropriate a-priori statistical power calculation is beneficial for determining the overall rigor of the reported findings. Of the other methodological aspects that were poorly reported, the lack of appropriate detail regarding the influence of confounding variables was quite substantial, as failure to account for these factors may result in a study observing a significant change that is simply the manifestation of another variable not adequately controlled for [43]. For example, it is widely recognised that gait and balance variables are influenced by walking speed [44?8] and age [49?1], hence if groups differ for either or both of these variables, appropriate adjustments should be made to account for this. Of the reviewed studies, 15 (58 ) described the principal confounder(s) of their research and reported having made adjustments to their outcomes to account for these variable(s) [17, 19, 22, 26?2, 35, 36, 38?0]. Of the remaining studies, four (15 ) provided a description of the potential confounders, but lacked clear descriptions of how they were accounted for in their analyses [14, 21, 34, 37], while seven (27 ) neither reported nor accounted for their potential confounders [13, 18, 20, 23?5, 33]. In the study by Fazio et al [18], it was reported that people with PD had significantly lower accelerations and jerk scores than ataxic patients and healthy controls. However, the age of the patients in the PD group (n = 17) ranged from 60?5 years, while the ataxic patients (n = 24) and controls (n = 24) were aged between 20 and 85 years, with more than 60 of these participants aged less than 60 years. Furthermore, the authors reported that the PD and ataxic patients walked significantly slower t.Alance and walking stability is provided in Table 2.DiscussionThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the existing literature to determine the best types of wearable sensors and the most appropriate anatomical placements and outcome measures to assess deficits in balance and gait between people with PD and controls. Using the methodological quality assessment tool adapted from Downs and Black [41], it was determined that the overall quality of scientific reporting in this area is largely of low to moderate quality. In general, the reviewed papers were lacking details concerning the representativeness of the study population (external validity), the approaches adopted to identify and account for confounding variables (internal validity) and an appropriate justification for the chosen sample size. Interestingly, 62 of the included studies received a score of zero for all of the criteria related to at least two of these three areas, while one study (4 ) received a score of zero for all three of these areas. The heavier weighting attributed to the sample size criterion is indicative of the importance of ensuring that a study has sufficient statistical power to identify a difference where one exists and, hence, minimise the likelihood of incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis (i.e. Type II error) [42]. Of the 26 studies included in this review, not one reported the results of a sample size calculation, but 13 (50 ) had fewer than 15 participants in each of their groups [13, 19?1, 23?8, 32, 34, 39] and three others (12 ) had at least one group with fewer than this number [29, 37, 38]. While it is important to emphasise that a large sample size is not always required to address a specific research question, reporting the outcome of an appropriate a-priori statistical power calculation is beneficial for determining the overall rigor of the reported findings. Of the other methodological aspects that were poorly reported, the lack of appropriate detail regarding the influence of confounding variables was quite substantial, as failure to account for these factors may result in a study observing a significant change that is simply the manifestation of another variable not adequately controlled for [43]. For example, it is widely recognised that gait and balance variables are influenced by walking speed [44?8] and age [49?1], hence if groups differ for either or both of these variables, appropriate adjustments should be made to account for this. Of the reviewed studies, 15 (58 ) described the principal confounder(s) of their research and reported having made adjustments to their outcomes to account for these variable(s) [17, 19, 22, 26?2, 35, 36, 38?0]. Of the remaining studies, four (15 ) provided a description of the potential confounders, but lacked clear descriptions of how they were accounted for in their analyses [14, 21, 34, 37], while seven (27 ) neither reported nor accounted for their potential confounders [13, 18, 20, 23?5, 33]. In the study by Fazio et al [18], it was reported that people with PD had significantly lower accelerations and jerk scores than ataxic patients and healthy controls. However, the age of the patients in the PD group (n = 17) ranged from 60?5 years, while the ataxic patients (n = 24) and controls (n = 24) were aged between 20 and 85 years, with more than 60 of these participants aged less than 60 years. Furthermore, the authors reported that the PD and ataxic patients walked significantly slower t.