| Literature DB >> 30219044 |
Agnieszka Guzik1, Mariusz Drużbicki2, Andrzej Kwolek2, Grzegorz Przysada2, Katarzyna Bazarnik-Mucha2, Magdalena Szczepanik2, Andżelina Wolan-Nieroda2, Marek Sobolewski3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice there is a need for a specific scale enabling detailed and multifactorial assessment of gait in children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The practical value of the present study is linked with the attempts to find a new, affordable, easy-to-use tool for gait assessment in children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The objective of the study is to evaluate the Wisconsin Gait Scale (WGS) in terms of its inter- and intra-rater reliability in observational assessment of walking in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral palsy; Hemiplegic gait; Inter-observer reliability; Intra-observer reliability; Scale adaptation; Wisconsin gait scale
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30219044 PMCID: PMC6139123 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-018-1273-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Flow of subjects through the study
Baseline characteristics of individuals with cerebral palsy
| Group ( | |
|---|---|
| Age [years], mean (sd) | 10.9 (2.3) |
| Sex [female/male] | 19/15 |
| Paretic limb [right/left] | 19/15 |
| Height [cm], mean (sd) | 138.9 (11.26) |
| Weight [kg], mean (sd) | 35.9 (8.97) |
| BMI [kg/m2], mean (sd) | 18.79 (4.12) |
| Comorbidities: | |
| - epilepsy | 3 |
| - insulin dependent diabetes | 1 |
| - visual disorder corrected with glasses | 5 |
| - auditory limitations | 1 |
sd standard deviation, BMI Body Mass Index
Comparison of the original and modified Wisconsin Gait Scale in items 4 and 11
| Original Wisconsin Gate Scale | Modified Wisconsin Gait Scale |
|---|---|
| 4. Weight Shift to the Affected Side, with or without a gait aid | 4. Weight Shift to the weight bearing leg, with or without a gait aid |
| 1 = Full shift | 1 = Full shift |
| 2 = Decreased shift: head and trunk crosses midline, but not over the affected foot | 2a = Decreased shift: head and trunk crosses midline, but not over the affected foot |
| 3 = Very limited shift: head and trunk does not cross midline, minimal weight shift in the direction of the affected side | 2b = Decreased shift: head and trunk crosses midline, but not over the unaffected foot, head and trunk for part of stance phase leaning towards the affected side |
| 3a = Very limited shift: head and trunk does not cross midline, minimal weight shift in the direction of the affected side | |
| 3b = Very limited shift: head and trunk does not cross midline, minimal weight shift in the direction of the unaffected side, head and trunk during entire stance phase leaning towards the affected side | |
| 11. Knee flexion from toe off to mid swing | 11. Knee flexion from toe off to mid swing |
| 1 = normal (affected knee flexes equally to unaffected side) | 1 = normal (affected knee flexes equally to unaffected side) |
| 2 = some (affected knee flexes, but less than unaffected knee) | 2a = some (affected knee flexes, but less than unaffected knee) |
| 3 = minimal (minimal flexion noted in affected knee (hardly visible) | 2b = some (affected knee flexes, but more than unaffected knee) |
| 3a = minimal (minimal flexion noted in affected knee (hardly visible) | |
| 3b = maximal (maximal flexion noted in affected knee (well visible) | |
| 4 = none (knee remains in extension throughout swing) | 4 = none (knee remains in extension throughout swing) |
Distribution of WGS in the specific measurement series
| WGS |
| Me |
| min | max | 95% c.i. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physiotherapist 1 / exam 1 | 19.58 | 19.10 | 3.24 | 15.35 | 25.10 | (18.45; 20.71) |
| Physiotherapist 1 / exam 2 | 19.64 | 19.10 | 3.05 | 15.35 | 25.10 | (18.57; 20.70) |
| Physiotherapist 2 / exam 1 | 19.46 | 19.10 | 3.17 | 14.35 | 25.10 | (18.35; 20.56) |
| Physiotherapist 2 / exam 2 | 19.75 | 19.60 | 3.10 | 15.10 | 25.10 | (18.67; 20.83) |
| Physiotherapist 3 / exam 1 | 19.69 | 19.10 | 3.18 | 14.35 | 26.10 | (18.58; 20.80) |
| Physiotherapist 3 / exam 2 | 19.86 | 20.23 | 3.26 | 14.35 | 26.10 | (18.73; 21.00) |
– arithmetic mean, Me median, sd standard deviation, min minimum, max maximum, 95% c.i. – estimation of mean value in the entire population constructed as 95% confidence intervals
Comparison of test-retest results determined independently for each physiotherapist
|
| Me |
| min | max | 95% c.i. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WGS (Physiotherapist 1) | ||||||
| test | 19.58 | 19.10 | 3.24 | 15.35 | 25.10 | (18.45; 20.71) |
| re-test | 19.64 | 19.10 | 3.05 | 15.35 | 25.10 | (18.57; 20.70) |
| re-test vs. test ( | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.60 | − 1.00 | 2.00 | (− 0.15; 0.27) |
| WGS (Physiotherapist 2) | ||||||
| test | 19.46 | 19.10 | 3.17 | 14.35 | 25.10 | (18.35; 20.56) |
| re-test | 19.75 | 19.60 | 3.10 | 15.10 | 25.10 | (18.67; 20.83) |
| re-test vs. test ( | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.72 | −1.00 | 2.00 | (0.04; 0.54) |
| WGS (Physiotherapist 3) | ||||||
| test | 19.69 | 19.10 | 3.18 | 14.35 | 26.10 | (18.58; 20.80) |
| re-test | 19.86 | 20.23 | 3.26 | 14.35 | 26.10 | (18.73; 21.00) |
| re-test vs. test ( | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.94 | −2.00 | 3.00 | (−0.15; 0.50) |
– arithmetic mean, Me median, sd standard deviation, min minimum, max maximum, 5% c.i. – estimation of mean value in the entire population constructed as 95% confidence intervals, p – Wilcoxon test probability values
Comparison of test-retest results, separately for each physiotherapist
| Physiotherapist | Comparison of test-retest | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilcoxon test | Rank correlation | ICC | CV | MDC | |
| 1 | 0.4413 | 0.97 ( | 0.9821 | 1.6% | 1.20 |
| 2 | 0.0597 | 0.97 ( | 0.9701 | 2.1% | 1.52 |
| 3 | 0.3109 | 0.95 ( | 0.9575 | 2.3% | 1.82 |
p – test probability values, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CV intra-subject coefficient of variation, MDC minimal detectable change (calculated for 95% confidence level)
Fig. 2The Bland- Altman plots for comparison of test-retest results, separately for each physiotherapist
Paired comparison of the scores determined by the specific physiotherapists in exam 1 (test) and exam 2 (retest)
|
| Me |
| min | max | 95% c.i. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WGS (total) exam 1 (test) | ||||||
| Physiotherapist 2 vs. Physiotherapist 1 ( | −0.12 | 0.00 | 0.81 | −2.00 | 2.00 | (−0.40; 0.16) |
| Physiotherapist 3 vs. Physiotherapist 2 ( | 0.23 | 0.00 | 1.15 | −3.00 | 3.00 | (−0.17; 0.63) |
| Physiotherapist 3 vs. Physiotherapist 1 ( | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.58 | −1.00 | 1.00 | (−0.09; 0.31) |
| WGS (total) exam 2 (retest) | ||||||
| Physiotherapist 2 vs. Physiotherapist 1 ( | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.91 | −1.00 | 3.00 | (−0.20; 0.44) |
| Physiotherapist 3 vs. Physiotherapist 2 ( | 0.11 | 0.00 | 1.32 | −4.00 | 2.00 | (−0.35; 0.57) |
| Physiotherapist 3 vs. Physiotherapist 1 ( | 0.23 | 0.00 | 1.08 | −3.00 | 2.00 | (−0.15; 0.60) |
– arithmetic mean, Me median, sd standard deviation, min minimum, max maximum, 5% c.i. – estimation of mean value in the entire population constructed as 95% confidence intervals, p – Wilcoxon test probability values
Paired comparison of the scores between the specific physiotherapists in exam 1 (test) and in exam 2 (retest)
| Wilcoxon test | Rank correlation | ICC | CV | MDC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physiotherapist | Exam 1 (test) | ||||
| 2 vs. 1 | 0.4446 | 0.96 ( | 0.9685 | 2.1% | 1.59 |
| 3 vs. 2 | 0.2575 | 0.92 ( | 0.9335 | 3.1% | 2.26 |
| 3 vs. 1 | 0.3078 | 0.98 ( | 0.9835 | 1.6% | 1.15 |
| Physiotherapist | Exam 2 (re-test) | ||||
| 2 vs. 1 | 0.6529 | 0.94 ( | 0.9564 | 2.4% | 1.77 |
| 3 vs. 2 | 0.6292 | 0.88 ( | 0.9162 | 3.5% | 2.49 |
| 3 vs. 1 | 0.1702 | 0.91 ( | 0.9410 | 2.9% | 2.05 |
p – test probability values, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CV intra-subject coefficient of variation, MDC minimal detectable change (calculated for 95% confidence level)
Fig. 3The Bland- Altman plots for paired comparison of the scores between the specific physiotherapists in exam 1 (test)
Fig. 4The Bland- Altman plots for paired comparison of the scores between the specific physiotherapists in exam 2 (retest)