Literature DB >> 12194509

Reproducibility of gait analysis variables: one-step versus three-step method of data acquisition.

Edgar J G Peters1, Ana Urukalo, John G Fleischli, Lawrence A Lavery.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the preciseness and repeatability of EMED-SF platform data collection using two different protocols. Gait variables of five healthy women and five men, with an average age of 27.3 +/- 3.2 years, weighing 67.5 +/- 13.3 kg, were evaluated. With a one-step and a three-step approach of data collection, peak pressure, pressure-time integral, and contact time were measured. Peak pressures were not significantly different between both methods. Significant differences were found between both methods in total contact time and pressure-time integral. Both methods were comparable in peak pressures (error between methods = 7.0), while the one-step protocol was more repeatable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.59) than the three-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.36). The error between methods for total contact time and pressure-time integral were 143.3 and 50.1, respectively, suggesting that the two protocols lead to different results. The one-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.40) had a higher repeatability than the three-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.31). The one-step protocol has some advantages over the three-step protocol as far as repeatability, simplicity, convenience, and time conservation are concerned. For measuring total contact time and pressure-time integrals, both methods have comparable repeatability, although the protocols lead to different outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12194509     DOI: 10.1016/s1067-2516(02)80016-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Foot Ankle Surg        ISSN: 1067-2516            Impact factor:   1.286


  5 in total

1.  Plantar pressure distribution patterns of individuals with prediabetes in comparison with healthy individuals and individuals with diabetes.

Authors:  Caroline Cabral Robinson; Luciane Fachin Balbinot; Marcelo Faria Silva; Matilde Achaval; Milton Antônio Zaro
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

2.  Pedobarography as a clinical tool in the management of diabetic feet in New Zealand: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Jason K Gurney; Uwe G Kersting; Dieter Rosenbaum; Ajith Dissanayake; Steve York; Roger Grech; Anthony Ng; Bobbie Milne; James Stanley; Diana Sarfati
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  Reliability of the Footscan® Platform System in Healthy Subjects: A Comparison of without Top-Layer and with Top-Layer Protocols.

Authors:  Chao Xu; Xin-Xin Wen; Lu-Yu Huang; Lei Shang; Zhao Yang; Ya-Bo Yan; Wei Lei
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Lower limb biomechanical characteristics of patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: the diabetes foot ulcer study protocol.

Authors:  Malindu Eranga Fernando; Robert George Crowther; Margaret Cunningham; Peter Anthony Lazzarini; Kunwarjit Singh Sangla; Jonathan Golledge
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.763

5.  The reproducibility of acquiring three dimensional gait and plantar pressure data using established protocols in participants with and without type 2 diabetes and foot ulcers.

Authors:  Malindu Fernando; Robert G Crowther; Margaret Cunningham; Peter A Lazzarini; Kunwarjit S Sangla; Petra Buttner; Jonathan Golledge
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 2.303

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.