Georgia Bosscher, Andrea Tomas, Simon C Roe1, Denis J Marcellin-Little, B Duncan X Lascelles. 1. Prof. Simon C. Roe, North Carolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, 1052 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607, United States, Phone: +1 919 513 6334, Fax: +1 919 513 6336, E-mail: Simon_Roe@ncsu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of measurements collected using a weight distribution platform and a pressure sensitive walkway using an inanimate object with known weight distribution. METHODS: A custom-built jig with a range of weights was applied in a random order. Measurements were collected on both devices and compared to each other and to the known weight distribution. RESULTS: Weight distribution platform and pressure sensitive walkway measurements were highly correlated to each other (Pearson's correlation coefficient R = 0.98) and to actual weights (R = 0.99 for the weight distribution platform; 0.98 for the pressure sensitive walkway). Repeatability from day to day for both devices was greater than 0.99. For the weight distribution platform, the 95% confidence interval was ± 2.5% from the true percentage and ± 3.3% for the pressure sensitive walkway. The coefficient of variation (COV) was highest for both devices at the lightest weights (weight distribution platform 11.28%, pressure sensitive walkway 16.91%) and lowest with the heaviest weights (weight distribution platform 3.71%, pressure sensitive walkway 5.86%). CONCLUSION: Both the weight distribution platform and the pressure sensitive walkway provided accurate and consistent measures of weight distribution with no significant difference between devices. The rounded standard error was three percent for the weight distribution platform, and four percent for the pressure sensitive walkway. The higher variability when measuring the smallest weight suggests less accuracy at lower weights with both devices. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The weight distribution platform is a repeatable and accessible device to measure static weight distribution, and if proven the same in a clinical setting, it will be a valuable addition to current objective measures of limb use.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of measurements collected using a weight distribution platform and a pressure sensitive walkway using an inanimate object with known weight distribution. METHODS: A custom-built jig with a range of weights was applied in a random order. Measurements were collected on both devices and compared to each other and to the known weight distribution. RESULTS: Weight distribution platform and pressure sensitive walkway measurements were highly correlated to each other (Pearson's correlation coefficient R = 0.98) and to actual weights (R = 0.99 for the weight distribution platform; 0.98 for the pressure sensitive walkway). Repeatability from day to day for both devices was greater than 0.99. For the weight distribution platform, the 95% confidence interval was ± 2.5% from the true percentage and ± 3.3% for the pressure sensitive walkway. The coefficient of variation (COV) was highest for both devices at the lightest weights (weight distribution platform 11.28%, pressure sensitive walkway 16.91%) and lowest with the heaviest weights (weight distribution platform 3.71%, pressure sensitive walkway 5.86%). CONCLUSION: Both the weight distribution platform and the pressure sensitive walkway provided accurate and consistent measures of weight distribution with no significant difference between devices. The rounded standard error was three percent for the weight distribution platform, and four percent for the pressure sensitive walkway. The higher variability when measuring the smallest weight suggests less accuracy at lower weights with both devices. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The weight distribution platform is a repeatable and accessible device to measure static weight distribution, and if proven the same in a clinical setting, it will be a valuable addition to current objective measures of limb use.
Authors: Ron Ben-Amotz; David Dycus; David Levine; Andréia Gonçalves Arruda; Nicholas Fagan; Denis Marcellin-Little Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 2.741