OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify which biomechanical and physiological parameters are the most relevant, commonly used, able to discriminate and/or have specific clinical relevance for the gait analysis of lower-limb amputees (LLA). METHODS: We performed an electronic search via the PubMed, EMBASE and ISI Web of Knowledge databases from 1979 to May 2009. Two independent reviewers assessed the title and abstract of each identified study. The quality assessment of the full text was undertaken using a 13-item checklist divided into three levels: A, B, and C. RESULTS: The literature search identified 584 abstracts to be considered. After applying the inclusion criteria, we reviewed the full text of a total of 89 articles. The mean article quality was 8±2. No A-level article was found; the primary reason was a negative score in blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-six articles (74%) corresponded to a B-level, and two articles (2%) corresponded to a C-level. Twenty-one articles (24%) did not acquire enough points to be assigned to any level. In this study, we present and discuss the most commonly used and most relevant 32 parameters. Many of the parameters found were not reported in enough studies or in enough detail to allow a useful evaluation. CONCLUSION: This systematic review can help researchers compare, choose and develop the most appropriate gait evaluation protocol for their field of study, based on the articles with best scores on the criteria list and the relevance of specific biomechanical and physiological parameters.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify which biomechanical and physiological parameters are the most relevant, commonly used, able to discriminate and/or have specific clinical relevance for the gait analysis of lower-limb amputees (LLA). METHODS: We performed an electronic search via the PubMed, EMBASE and ISI Web of Knowledge databases from 1979 to May 2009. Two independent reviewers assessed the title and abstract of each identified study. The quality assessment of the full text was undertaken using a 13-item checklist divided into three levels: A, B, and C. RESULTS: The literature search identified 584 abstracts to be considered. After applying the inclusion criteria, we reviewed the full text of a total of 89 articles. The mean article quality was 8±2. No A-level article was found; the primary reason was a negative score in blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-six articles (74%) corresponded to a B-level, and two articles (2%) corresponded to a C-level. Twenty-one articles (24%) did not acquire enough points to be assigned to any level. In this study, we present and discuss the most commonly used and most relevant 32 parameters. Many of the parameters found were not reported in enough studies or in enough detail to allow a useful evaluation. CONCLUSION: This systematic review can help researchers compare, choose and develop the most appropriate gait evaluation protocol for their field of study, based on the articles with best scores on the criteria list and the relevance of specific biomechanical and physiological parameters.
Authors: Shane R Wurdeman; Kendra K Schmid; Sara A Myers; Adam L Jacobsen; Nicholas Stergiou Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Iman Shojaei; Brad D Hendershot; Julian C Acasio; Christopher L Dearth; Matthew Ballard; Babak Bazrgari Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: John C Cagle; Per G Reinhall; Kate J Allyn; Jake McLean; Paul Hinrichs; Brian J Hafner; Joan E Sanders Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Brecca M M Gaffney; Cory L Christiansen; Amanda M Murray; Bradley S Davidson Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Melvyn Roerdink; Andrea G Cutti; Aurora Summa; Davide Monari; Davide Veronesi; Mariëlle W van Ooijen; Peter J Beek Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Alison L Pruziner; Kathryn M Werner; Timothy J Copple; Brad D Hendershot; Erik J Wolf Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.176