Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research (no longer under consideration since Jan 12, 2026)

Date Submitted: Sep 2, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Sep 2, 2025 - Oct 28, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Real world walking speed as an outcome measure for clinical trials – a systematic review, regulatory status and future directions

  • Margaux Poleur; 
  • Cyril Tychon; 
  • Stephen Gilbert; 
  • Daumer Martin; 
  • Laurent Servais

ABSTRACT

Background:

Walking speed is a key measure of health and mobility across a wide range of diseases. Traditional gait assessments in clinical settings may not accurately reflect real-world mobility patterns. Wearable sensors offer an ecologically valid alternative by capturing every movement in daily life, but there are very few reports of robust, validated outcomes derived from these sensors.

Objective:

We aimed to identify evidence on real-world gait speed measurements that have received or are seeking regulatory approval from agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review following a comprehensive search strategy using the Ovid platform, guided by pre-defined selection criteria and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We also manually searched the websites of key regulatory agencies and the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

Results:

Our search identified 503 records, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were part of large-scale initiatives, including the qualification of the Stride Velocity 95th Centile and the MOBILISE-D project. No device or outcome measure that assess walking speed in real-world conditions has been fully validated by the FDA. We found four letters of intent on the FDA website related to this concept. One outcome, the 95th centile of stride velocity, has been approved by the EMA as a primary endpoint for assessing ambulant patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Conclusions:

Despite the potential of wearable devices to enhance drug development and clinical decision-making, real-world walking speed remains insufficiently validated across most conditions because data is missing. The widespread adoption of digital outcome to assess ambulation will require extensive validation efforts, regulatory pathway adaptations, and improved standardization of devices, algorithms, and study methodologies.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Poleur M, Tychon C, Gilbert S, Martin D, Servais L

Real world walking speed as an outcome measure for clinical trials – a systematic review, regulatory status and future directions

JMIR Preprints. 02/09/2025:81417

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.81417

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/81417

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.