Bart Dingenen1, Christian Barton2, Tessa Janssen3, Anke Benoit3, Peter Malliaras4. 1. Rehabilitation Research Centre, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, UHasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium. Electronic address: bart.dingenen@uhasselt.be. 2. La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia; Complete Sports Care, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia; Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Australia. 3. Rehabilitation Research Centre, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, UHasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium. 4. Complete Sports Care, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine test-retest reliability of two-dimensional measured frontal and sagittal plane kinematics during running, and to determine how many steps to include to reach and maintain a stable mean. DESIGN: Reliability study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one recreational runners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lateral trunk position, contralateral pelvic drop, femoral adduction, hip adduction, knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion during midstance, and foot and tibia inclination at initial contact were measured with two-dimensional video analysis during running for 10 consecutive steps for both legs. All participants were tested twice one week apart. A sequential estimation method was used to determine the number of steps needed to reach a stable mean. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and smallest detectable differences (SDD) were calculated. RESULTS: The minimal number of steps was 6.3 ± 0.3. Lateral trunk position, femoral adduction and foot inclination showed excellent reliability (ICC 0.90-0.99; SDD 1.3°-2.3°). Tibia inclination and ankle dorsiflexion showed good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.73-0.92; SDD 2.2°-4.8°). Hip adduction and knee flexion showed good reliability (ICC 0.82-0.89; SDD 2.3°-3.8°). Contralateral pelvic drop showed moderate to good reliability (ICC 0.59-0.77; SDD 2.7°-2.8°). CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional video analysis is reliable to assess running kinematics on different days. The mean of at least 7 steps should be included.
OBJECTIVES: To examine test-retest reliability of two-dimensional measured frontal and sagittal plane kinematics during running, and to determine how many steps to include to reach and maintain a stable mean. DESIGN: Reliability study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one recreational runners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lateral trunk position, contralateral pelvic drop, femoral adduction, hip adduction, knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion during midstance, and foot and tibia inclination at initial contact were measured with two-dimensional video analysis during running for 10 consecutive steps for both legs. All participants were tested twice one week apart. A sequential estimation method was used to determine the number of steps needed to reach a stable mean. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and smallest detectable differences (SDD) were calculated. RESULTS: The minimal number of steps was 6.3 ± 0.3. Lateral trunk position, femoral adduction and foot inclination showed excellent reliability (ICC 0.90-0.99; SDD 1.3°-2.3°). Tibia inclination and ankle dorsiflexion showed good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.73-0.92; SDD 2.2°-4.8°). Hip adduction and knee flexion showed good reliability (ICC 0.82-0.89; SDD 2.3°-3.8°). Contralateral pelvic drop showed moderate to good reliability (ICC 0.59-0.77; SDD 2.7°-2.8°). CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional video analysis is reliable to assess running kinematics on different days. The mean of at least 7 steps should be included.
Authors: Rachel Mason; Liam T Pearson; Gillian Barry; Fraser Young; Oisin Lennon; Alan Godfrey; Samuel Stuart Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Emily B Beyer; Rena F Hale; Aaron R Hellem; Allison M Mumbleau; Nathan D Schilaty; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-10
Authors: José Roberto de Souza Júnior; Pedro Henrique Reis Rabelo; Thiago Vilela Lemos; Jean-Francois Esculier; João Pedro da Silva Carto; João Paulo Chieregato Matheus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Felipe García-Pinillos; Pedro Á Latorre-Román; Víctor M Soto-Hermoso; Juan A Párraga-Montilla; Antonio Pantoja-Vallejo; Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo; Luis E Roche-Seruendo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bas Van Hooren; Joel T Fuller; Jonathan D Buckley; Jayme R Miller; Kerry Sewell; Guillaume Rao; Christian Barton; Chris Bishop; Richard W Willy Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Rhys Hughes; Matt Cross; Keith Stokes; Daniel Tobin; Eoin Power; Steph McNally; Jonathan Pamment Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2021-10-19
Authors: Felipe García-Pinillos; Diego Jaén-Carrillo; Victor Soto Hermoso; Pedro Latorre Román; Pedro Delgado; Antonio Carton; Cristian Martinez; Luis Roche Seruendo Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 4.773