Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32884845›Full record

ArticleRehabilitation research and practice2020

Methods of 10-Meter Walk Test and Repercussions for Reliability Obtained in Typically Developing Children.

Cyntia R J A de Baptista, Amanda M Vicente, Mariana A Souza, Juliana Cardoso, Vanessa M Ramalho, Ana C Mattiello-Sverzut

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rehabilitation research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cyntia R J A de BaptistaDepartment of Health Science, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5850-9940
Amanda M VicenteDepartment of Health Science, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9378-315X
Mariana A SouzaRehabilitation and Functional Performance Graduate Program, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4274-1301
Juliana CardosoRehabilitation and Functional Performance Graduate Program, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5870-261X
Vanessa M RamalhoDepartment of Health Science, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.
Ana C Mattiello-SverzutDepartment of Health Science, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4181-0718
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch and clinical settings use the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) to measure locomotor capacity with considerable methodological diversity. Comparison between healthy and disabled children is frequent; however, the reproducibility of 10MWT using different methods is unknown.

objectivesThis study analysed intrasubject, test-retest reliability, and agreement of four methods of 10MWT, exploring the influence of pace, acceleration-deceleration phases, and anthropometric measurements when calculating mean velocity.

methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated 120 typical children, both sexes, aged 6, 8, 10, and 12 (

resultsThe fV10 method had high intrasubject reliability for all tested ages (0.70 < ICC > 0.89); sV10 exhibited high intrasubject reliability for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.70 < ICC > 0.89) and moderate for age 10 (0.50 < ICC < 0.69).Test-retest reliability at sV6 and fV6 did not reach high ICC in any tested ages. The test-retest reliability at sV10 and fV10 was moderate for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.50 < ICC > 0.69) and poor for age 10 (0.25 < ICC > 0.49). There was no agreement between methods: sV6 versus sV10 (mean difference = 0.91 m/s; SEM = 0.036); fV6 versus fV10 (mean difference = 1.70; SEM = 0.046). The fV6 method versus fV10 overestimated the velocity (bias = 1.70 m/s).

conclusionsFor typical children, the method that ensured the highest intrasubject reliability used fast pace and 10 m. Moreover, test-retest reliability increased when adopting 10 m at both self-selected and fast pace. The methods were not equivalent but were related, and those that did not compute the entire pathway overestimated the results.

Identifiers

PMID32884845
PMCPMC7455832
OpenAlexW3067615467

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.