ArticleGait & posture2025
Comparison of gait deviation index (GDI) and gait variability index (GVI) measured by marker-based and markerless motion capture systems in children with cerebral palsy (CP).
Article in Gait & posture, 2025. 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.
- The Clinician's Guide to Computer Vision in the Motion Capture Galaxy.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2026Article
- Clinical and instrument-based assessment of balance, gait, and motor functions in pediatric cerebral palsy: A systematic review.Wearable technologies · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Gait Deviation Index (GDI) is a metric clinicians use to assess overall gait pathology in children with cerebral palsy (CP) by comparing kinematic data to a normative sample. The Gait Variability Index (GVI) is a related metric that quantifies the variability in spatio-temporal variables during gait. The GDI and GVI have been verified using marker-based motion capture approaches, but video-based markerless motion capture has not been compared using these tools in children with CP. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do GDI and GVI scores differ when measured using markerlessTheia3D and a marker-based approach between the more and less affected legs in children with CP?
methodsFifteen children with CP (GMFCS levels I-IV) and 24 typically developing children aged 6-18 years were recruited for this study. Overground walking was performed at a self-selected pace while the pelvis and lower limb kinematics were simultaneously recorded using both motion capture systems. Differences in GDI and GVI scores when considering the effect of system and limb impairment were analyzed using two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs.
resultsGDI scores were 6.9 points lower (p < 0.05) when measured using Theia3D compared to the marker-based approach and 6.8 points lower (p < 0.05) in the more affected limbs than in the less affected limbs. These GDI score differences are considered clinically significant. No differences were identified in GVI scores between systems or limb impairment. Differences in kinematic measurements were found in children with CP, including pelvic tilt, hip flexion/extension, hip rotation, and foot progression angle, where root mean square differences between systems exceeded 10°. SIGNIFICANCE: Theia3D can adequately measure variability in spatio-temporal gait parameters for quantifying GVI scores in children with CP compared to the marker-based approach. However, caution is needed when quantifying lower limb kinematics and interpreting GDI and GVI scores using Theia3D in children with CP.
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.