Objective: To confirm that the simplified insole does not affect the gait speed and to identify objective sensor-based gait parameters that correlate strongly with existing clinical gait assessment scales. Methods: Ten participants with gait impairment due to hemiplegic stroke were enrolled in this study. Pairs of insoles with four pressure sensors on each side were manufactured and placed in each shoe. Data were extracted during the 10-Meter Walk Test. Several sensor-derived parameters (for example stance time, heel_on-to-toe_peak time, and toe_peak pressure) were calculated and correlated with gait speed and lower extremity Fugl-Meyer (F-M) score. Results: The insole pressure sensor did not affect gait, as indicated by a strong correlation (ρ=0.988) and high agreement (ICC=0.924) between the gait speeds with and without the insole. The parameters that correlated most strongly with highest β coefficients against the clinical measures were stance time of the non-hemiplegic leg (β=-0.87 with F-M and β=-0.95 with gait speed) and heel_on-to-toe_peak time of the non-hemiplegic leg (β=-0.86 with F-M and -0.94 with gait speed). Conclusion Stance time of the non-hemiparetic leg correlates most strongly with clinical measures and can be assessed using a non-obtrusive insole pressure sensor that does not affect gait function. These results suggest that an insole pressure sensor, which is applicable in a home environment, may be useful as a clinical endpoint in post-stroke gait therapy trials.

Background: and Purpose Speedy decision-making is important for optimal outcomes from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Figural decision aids facilitate rapid review of treatment benefits and harms, but have not yet been developed for late-presenting patients selected for EVT based on multimodal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: For combined pooled study-level randomized trial (DAWN and DEFUSE 3) data, as well as each trial singly, 100 person-icon arrays (Kuiper-Marshall personographs) were generated showing beneficial and adverse effects of EVT for patients with AIS and large vessel occlusion using automated (algorithmic) and expert-guided joint outcome table specification. Results: Among imaging-selected patients 6 to 24 hours from last known well, for the full 7-category modified Rankin Scale (mRS), EVT had number needed to treat to benefit 1.9 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9 to 2.1) and number needed to harm 40.0 (IQR, 29.2 to 58.3). Visual displays of treatment effects among 100 patients showed that, with EVT: 52 patients have better disability outcome, including 32 more achieving functional independence (mRS 0 to 2); three patients have worse disability outcome, including one more experiencing severe disability or death (mRS 5 to 6), mediated by symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and infarct in new territory. Similar features were present in person-icon figures based on a 6-level mRS (levels 5 and 6 combined) rather than 7-level mRS, and based on the DAWN trial alone and DEFUSE 3 trial alone. Conclusions Personograph visual decision aids are now available to rapidly educate patients, family, and healthcare providers regarding benefits and risks of EVT for late-presenting, imaging-selected AIS patients.