ArticleHeliyon2024
An observational study of the impact of professional walking aid prescription on gait parameters for individuals with suspected balance impairments.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Blinded gait assessment in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: reliability and correlation with clinical and patient-reported outcomes.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The primary management strategy for gait impairment is the adoption of a walking aid. However, there are no established criteria upon which to base a decision regarding the need for a walking aid. It appears clinicians prescribe aids based on preference, clinical experience and intuition rather than standardised objective rationale. This may contribute to the inconsistent gait response to walking aids reported in the published literature. Understanding gait changes resulting from gait aid usage may have significant impact on clinical practice by improving confidence of prescribing clinicians and compliance of walking aid usage by patients, maximising the benefits of use, and reducing any risks associated with non-use or inappropriate use, of the walking aid. Research question: Do professionally prescribed walking aids improve gait parameters? Methods: This is a secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional study where participants, identified by healthcare staff requiring a mobility assessment due to potential balance impairment of any cause, walked a 20-m straight walking course under three different walking conditions (no aid, walking stick and 4-wheeled walker). Fifty-eight participants were recruited. Commonly reported spatial and temporal gait parameters were assessed using a validated gait analysis device. Changes in gait parameters across the three conditions were compared, noting the individual's professionally prescribed aid and interpreting changes in parameters towards outcomes of the 'no aid required group'. Results and significance: Gait cycle, cadence, stance, swing and stride length during unaided walking were significantly changed when a walking stick was prescribed (p < 0.05). Stance, swing, double support, stride length, speed, max toe clearance and minimum toe clearance were significantly changed when a 4-wheel walker was prescribed (p < 0.05). Professional walking aid prescription improves some gait parameters. A greater number and magnitude of gait parameter improvements were seen in people requiring a 4-wheel walker than people requiring a walking stick.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.