ArticleJournal of exercise science and fitness2026
The psychometric properties of Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) in assessing walking ability in people with knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: (1) Compare Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) scores between knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients and healthy older adults; (2) assess FGA inter-rater/test-retest reliability in people with KOA; (3) examine the correlations between FGA scores and knee function measures; (4) identify the optimal FGA cutoff score for distinguishing people with KOA from healthy controls. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 63 individuals with KOA (mean age = 66.6 years) and 30 healthy older adults (mean age = 68.1 years). The participants were assessed by FGA, knee flexion/extension strength, Limit of Stability (LOS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), Five Times Sit to Stand (5STS), Activity-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), and Oxford Participation and Activities Questionnaire (Ox-PAQ). The KOA group was assessed on Day 1 and Day 2 (7 days apart), whereas the healthy group was assessed on Day 1 only. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the FGA in the KOA group were evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Correlations between FGA performance and other outcome measures were analyzed using Pearson's r or Spearman's rho. The optimal FGA cutoff score for differentiating between the KOA and healthy groups was determined using the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve. Results: People with KOA (mean ± standard deviation (SD) = 23.49 ± 3.87) had significantly lower(p < 0.001) FGA scores than healthy older adults (mean ± SD = 27.03 ± 2.51). The FGA demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.986) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.897). FGA scores showed moderate-to-strong positive correlations with affected knee strength, LOS, BBS, KOOS, and ABC (r = 0.36-0.70), and significant negative correlations with TUG, 5STS, FES-I, and Ox-PAQ scores (r = -0.32 to -0.69). The optimal FGA cutoff score was 25.5 (Area Under the Curve = 0.795-0.798, sensitivity = 0.867, specificity = 0.651-0.667) as a threshold to distinguish performance of people with KOA from healthy controls. Conclusion: The FGA showed promising overall reliability and selected validity evidence in this sample, while further confirmation in larger, more diverse cohorts is required.
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.