Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31781597›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2019

Observational Gait Assessment Scales in Patients with Walking Disorders: Systematic Review.

Carmen Ridao-Fernández, Elena Pinero-Pinto, Gema Chamorro-Moriana

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

3 authors.

Carmen Ridao-FernándezDepartment of Physiotherapy, Research Group "Area of Physiotherapy CTS-305", University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4573-5185
Elena Pinero-PintoDepartment of Physiotherapy, Research Group "Area of Physiotherapy CTS-305", University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain.
Gema Chamorro-MorianaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Research Group "Area of Physiotherapy CTS-305", University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compile and analyze the characteristics and methodological quality of observational gait assessment scales validated to date.

methods

resultsEighteen articles based on 14 scales were included. The populations were neurological patients (72.22%), musculoskeletal disorders (11.11%), and other areas such as vestibular disorders (11.11%). The most addressed items were orthopedic aids (64.29%); phases of the gait cycle and kinematics of the leg and trunk (57.14% each one); and spatial and temporal parameters (50%). All studies analyzed criterion validity, and five included content or structural validity (27.78%). Fifteen articles considered reliability (83.33%). Regarding the seven-item scale QUADAS-2, five studies obtained six results on "low" risk of bias or "low" concerns regarding applicability. Nine articles obtained at least a "fair" result on COSMIN checklist.

conclusionsA necessary compilation of the observational gait assessment scales validated to date was conducted. Besides, their characteristics and methodological quality were analyzed. Most scales were applied in neurological signs. The most approached topics were orthopedic aids, phases of the gait cycle, and kinematics of the leg and trunk. The scale that demonstrated a higher methodological quality was

Indexed as

GaitMusculoskeletal DiseasesNervous System DiseasesPhysical Therapy ModalitiesVestibular DiseasesWalkingHumans

Identifiers

PMID31781597
PMCPMC6875351

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.