Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26050094›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2016

Measurement strategy and statistical power in studies assessing gait stability and variability in older adults.

Marcel J P Toebes, Marco J M Hoozemans, Svend Erik Mathiassen, Joost Dekker, Jaap H van Dieën

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcel J P ToebesMOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marco J M HoozemansMOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Svend Erik MathiassenCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Joost DekkerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jaap H van DieënMOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.van.dieen@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-5585
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam Public Health · NLUniversity of Gävle · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGait variability and stability measures might be useful to assess gait quality changes after fall prevention programs. However, reliability of these measures appears limited.

aimsThe objective of the present study was to assess the effects of measurement strategy in terms of numbers of subjects, measurement days and measurements per day on the power to detect relevant changes in gait variability and stability between conditions among healthy elderly.

methodsSixteen healthy older participants [65.6 (SD 5.9) years], performed two walking trials on each of 2 days. Required numbers of subjects to obtain sufficient statistical power for comparisons between conditions within subjects (paired, repeated-measures designs) were calculated (with confidence intervals) for several gait measures and for different numbers of trials per day and for different numbers of measurement days.

resultsThe numbers of subjects required to obtain sufficient statistical power in studies collecting data from one trial on 1 day in each of the two compared conditions ranged from 7 to 13 for large differences but highly correlated data between conditions, up to 78-192 for data with a small effect and low correlation. DISCUSSION: Low correlations between gait parameters in different conditions can be assumed and relatively small effects appear clinically meaningful. This implies that large numbers of subjects are generally needed.

conclusionThis study provides the analysis tools and underlying data for power analyses in studies using gait parameters as an outcome of interventions aiming to reduce fall risk.

Indexed as

GaitGeriatric AssessmentWalkingAccidental FallsAgedData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsBetween-day varianceGait variabilityLocal dynamic stabilityMeasurement designWalkingWithin-day variance

Identifiers

PMID26050094
PMCPMC4794523
OpenAlexW1558405515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.