Callum Betteridge1,2,3,4, Ralph Jasper Mobbs5,6,7,8, Daniel Ho1,2,3,4. 1. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia. 2. NeuroSpine Clinic, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Suite 7, Level 7, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Wearables and Gait Assessment Group (WAGAR), Sydney, Australia. 5. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia. r.mobbs@unsw.edu.au. 6. NeuroSpine Clinic, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Suite 7, Level 7, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. r.mobbs@unsw.edu.au. 7. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. r.mobbs@unsw.edu.au. 8. Wearables and Gait Assessment Group (WAGAR), Sydney, Australia. r.mobbs@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking is a fundamental part of living, and its importance is not limited by age or medical status. Reduced walking speed (WS), or gait velocity, is a sign of advancing age, various disease states, cognitive impairment, mental illness and early mortality. Activity levels, as defined in the literature as "daily step count" (DSC), is also a relevant measure of health status. A deterioration in our walking metrics, such as reduced WS and DSC, is associated with poor health outcomes. These objective measures are of such importance, that walking speed has been dubbed "the 6th vital sign". We report a new objective measure that scores walking using the relevant metrics of walking speed and daily step count, into an easy-to-understand score from 0 (nil mobility) to 100 (excellent mobility), termed the Simplified Mobility Score (SMoS™). We have provided equal weighting to walking speed and daily step count, using a simple algorithm to score each metric out of 50. METHODS: Gait data was collected from 182 patients presenting to a tertiary hospital spinal unit with complaints of pain and reduced mobility. Walking speed was measured from a timed walk along an unobstructed pathway. Daily step count information was obtained from patients who had enabled step count tracking on their devices. The SMoS of the sample group were compared to expected population values calculated from the literature using 2-tailed Z tests. RESULTS: There were significantly reduced SMoS in patients who presented to the spinal unit than those expected at each age group for both genders, except for the 50-59 age bracket where no statistically significant reduction was observed. Even lower scores were present in those that went on to have surgical management. There was a significant correlation of SMoS scores with subjective disability scores such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The SMoS is a simple and effective scoring tool which is demonstrably altered in spinal patients across age and gender brackets and correlates well with subjective disability scores. The SMoS has the potential to be used as a screening tool in primary and specialised care settings.
BACKGROUND: Walking is a fundamental part of living, and its importance is not limited by age or medical status. Reduced walking speed (WS), or gait velocity, is a sign of advancing age, various disease states, cognitive impairment, mental illness and early mortality. Activity levels, as defined in the literature as "daily step count" (DSC), is also a relevant measure of health status. A deterioration in our walking metrics, such as reduced WS and DSC, is associated with poor health outcomes. These objective measures are of such importance, that walking speed has been dubbed "the 6th vital sign". We report a new objective measure that scores walking using the relevant metrics of walking speed and daily step count, into an easy-to-understand score from 0 (nil mobility) to 100 (excellent mobility), termed the Simplified Mobility Score (SMoS™). We have provided equal weighting to walking speed and daily step count, using a simple algorithm to score each metric out of 50. METHODS: Gait data was collected from 182 patients presenting to a tertiary hospital spinal unit with complaints of pain and reduced mobility. Walking speed was measured from a timed walk along an unobstructed pathway. Daily step count information was obtained from patients who had enabled step count tracking on their devices. The SMoS of the sample group were compared to expected population values calculated from the literature using 2-tailed Z tests. RESULTS: There were significantly reduced SMoS in patients who presented to the spinal unit than those expected at each age group for both genders, except for the 50-59 age bracket where no statistically significant reduction was observed. Even lower scores were present in those that went on to have surgical management. There was a significant correlation of SMoS scores with subjective disability scores such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The SMoS is a simple and effective scoring tool which is demonstrably altered in spinal patients across age and gender brackets and correlates well with subjective disability scores. The SMoS has the potential to be used as a screening tool in primary and specialised care settings.
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Kushang Patel; Caterina Rosano; Kimberly Faulkner; Marco Inzitari; Jennifer Brach; Julie Chandler; Peggy Cawthon; Elizabeth Barrett Connor; Michael Nevitt; Marjolein Visser; Stephen Kritchevsky; Stefania Badinelli; Tamara Harris; Anne B Newman; Jane Cauley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David B Allison; John W Newcomer; Andrea L Dunn; James A Blumenthal; Anthony N Fabricatore; Gail L Daumit; Mark B Cope; William T Riley; Betty Vreeland; Joseph R Hibbeln; Jonathan E Alpert Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Vera M Ludwig; Adam Bayley; Derek G Cook; Daniel Stahl; Janet L Treasure; Mark Asthworth; Anne Greenough; Kirsty Winkley; Stefan R Bornstein; Khalida Ismail Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katherine S Hall; Eric T Hyde; David R Bassett; Susan A Carlson; Mercedes R Carnethon; Ulf Ekelund; Kelly R Evenson; Deborah A Galuska; William E Kraus; I-Min Lee; Charles E Matthews; John D Omura; Amanda E Paluch; William I Thomas; Janet E Fulton Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Ananya Chakravorty; Ralph J Mobbs; David B Anderson; Kaitlin Rooke; Kevin Phan; Nicole Yoong; Monish Maharaj; Wen Jie Choy Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-06-15 Impact factor: 2.362