Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26790409›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Validity and reliability of a portable gait analysis system for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics: comparison to an instrumented treadmill.

Lars Donath, Oliver Faude, Eric Lichtenstein, Corina Nüesch, Annegret Mündermann

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
26.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Establishing the Reliability of the GaitONSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lars DonathInstitute of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Basel, Birsstrasse 320 B, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. lars.donath@unibas.ch.
Oliver FaudeInstitute of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Basel, Birsstrasse 320 B, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. oliver.faude@unibas.ch.
Eric LichtensteinInstitute of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Basel, Birsstrasse 320 B, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. eric.lichtenstein@unibas.ch.
Corina NüeschClinic for Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. corina.nueesch@usb.ch.
Annegret MündermannClinic for Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. annegret.muendermann@unibas.ch.
University of Basel · CHUniversity Hospital of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGait analysis serves as an important tool for clinicians and other health professionals to assess gait patterns related to functional limitations due to neurological or orthopedic conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a body-worn inertial sensor system (RehaGait®) for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics compared to a stationary treadmill (Zebris) and the reliability of both systems at different walking speeds and slopes.

methodsGait analysis was performed during treadmill walking at different speeds (habitual walking speed (normal speed); 15 % above normal walking speed; 15 % below normal walking speed) and slopes (0 % slope; 15 % slope) in 22 healthy participants twice 1 week apart. Walking speed, stride length, cadence and stride time were computed from the inertial sensor system and the stationary treadmill and compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. Effect sizes of differences between systems were assessed using Cohen's d, and limits of agreement and systematic bias were computed.

resultsThe RehaGait® system slightly overestimated stride length (+2.7 %) and stride time (+0.8 %) and underestimate cadence (-1.5 %) with small effect sizes for all speeds and slopes (Cohen's d ≤ 0.44) except slow speed at 15 % slope (Cohen's d > 0.80). Walking speed obtained with the RehaGait® system closely matched the speed set on the treadmill tachometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were excellent for speed, cadence and stride time and for stride length at normal and fast speed at 0 % slope (ICC: .91-1.00). Good ICC values were found for stride length at slow speed at 0 % slope and all speeds at 15 % slope (ICC: .73-.90). Both devices had excellent reliability for most gait characteristics (ICC: .91-1.00) except good reliability for the RehaGait® for stride length at normal and fast speed at 0 % slope and at slow speed at 15 % slope (ICC: .80-.87).

conclusionsLarger limits of agreement for walking at 15 % slope suggests that uphill walking may influence the reliability of the RehaGait® system. The RehaGait® is a valid and reliable tool for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics during level and inclined treadmill walking.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGaitHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryReproducibility of ResultsWalking

Identifiers

PMID26790409
PMCPMC4719749
OpenAlexW2276527917

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.