Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32138747›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Step width variability as a discriminator of age-related gait changes.

Andreas Skiadopoulos, Emily E Moore, Harlan R Sayles, Kendra K Schmid, Nicholas Stergiou

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.3field-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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas SkiadopoulosDepartment of Biomechanics and Center for Research in Human Movement Variability, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Biomechanics Research Building 214, 6160 University Drive South, Omaha, NE, 68182-0860, USA.
Emily E MooreDepartment of Biomechanics and Center for Research in Human Movement Variability, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Biomechanics Research Building 214, 6160 University Drive South, Omaha, NE, 68182-0860, USA.
Harlan R SaylesDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Kendra K SchmidDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Nicholas StergiouDepartment of Biomechanics and Center for Research in Human Movement Variability, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Biomechanics Research Building 214, 6160 University Drive South, Omaha, NE, 68182-0860, USA. nstergiou@unomaha.edu.
University of Nebraska at Omaha · USUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · USSouth Dakota State University · US

Funding

Visual control of locomotion in people with Parkinsons diseaseP20GM109090 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA OMAHA · PI STERGIOU, NIKOLAOS · 2014 to 2023
$20.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109090NIGMS NIH HHS P20GM109090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is scientific evidence that older adults aged 65 and over walk with increased step width variability which has been associated with risk of falling. However, there are presently no threshold levels that define the optimal reference range of step width variability. Thus, the purpose of our study was to estimate the optimal reference range for identifying older adults with normative and excessive step width variability.

methodsWe searched systematically the BMC, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Frontiers, IEEE, PubMed, Scopus, SpringerLink, Web of Science, Wiley, and PROQUEST databases until September 2018, and included the studies that measured step width variability in both younger and older adults during walking at self-selected speed. Data were pooled in meta-analysis, and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A single-decision threshold method based on the Youden index, and a two-decision threshold method based on the uncertain interval method were used to identify the optimal threshold levels (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018107079).

resultsTen studies were retrieved (older adults = 304; younger adults = 219). Step width variability was higher in older than in younger adults (SMD = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.60; 1.70; t = 4.72, p = 0.001). The single-decision method set the threshold level for excessive step width variability at 2.14 cm. For the two-decision method, step width variability values above the upper threshold level of 2.50 cm were considered excessive, while step width variability values below the lower threshold level of 1.97 cm were considered within the optimal reference range.

conclusionStep width variability is higher in older adults than in younger adults, with step width variability values above the upper threshold level of 2.50 cm to be considered as excessive. This information could potentially impact rehabilitation technology design for devices targeting lateral stability during walking.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAgingFemaleGaitHumansMaleMiddle AgedReference ValuesYoung AdultBiomarkersBiomechanicsGaitLateral stabilityRehabilitationWalking

Identifiers

PMID32138747
PMCPMC7059259
OpenAlexW3011190286

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.