Dataset Information

Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although gait speed is a widely used measure in older people, testing methods are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of testing procedures on resulting gait speed. METHODS:We followed the PRISMA checklist for this systematic review. Two independent reviewers screened Pubmed and Embase for publications on pairwise comparisons of testing procedures of usual gait speed. Descriptives were abstracted from the included publications using a predefined extraction tool by two independent reviewers. We defined the cut-off for the minimal clinically imporant diffence in gait speed as 0.1 m/sec. RESULTS:Of a total of 2109 records identified for screening, 29 reports on 53 pairwise comparisons were analyzed. The median (range) difference in gait speed for dynamic versus static start was 0.06 (-0.02 to 0.35) m/sec (14 reports); for longer versus shorter test distance 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.23) m/sec (14 reports); for automatic versus manual timing 0.00 (-0.05 to 0.07) m/sec (12 reports), for hard versus soft surfaces -0.11 (-0.18 to 0.08) m/sec (six reports), and electronic walkways versus usual walk test 0.04 (-0.08 to 0.14) m/sec (seven reports), respectively. No report compared the effect of finishing procedures. CONCLUSIONS:The type of starting procedure, the length of the test distance, and the surface of the walkway may have a clinically relevant impact on measured gait speed. Manual timing resulted in statistically significant differences of measured gait speed as compared to automatic timing, but was below the level of clinical importance. These results emphasize that it is key to use a strictly standardized method for obtaining a reliable and valid measurement of gait speed.

SUBMITTER: Stuck AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7263604 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review.

Stuck Anna K AK Bachmann Madeleine M Füllemann Pia P Josephson Karen R KR Stuck Andreas E AE

PloS one 20200601 6

<h4>Background</h4>Although gait speed is a widely used measure in older people, testing methods are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of testing procedures on resulting gait speed.<h4>Methods</h4>We followed the PRISMA checklist for this systematic review. Two independent reviewers screened Pubmed and Embase for publications on pairwise comparisons of testing procedures of usual gait speed. Descriptives were abstracted from the included publications ...[more]

PMID: 32479543

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding the effects of gait speed on biomechanical variables is fundamental for a proper evaluation of alterations in gait, since pathological individuals tend to walk slower than healthy controls. Therefore, the aim of the study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of gait speed on spatiotemporal parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces in healthy children, young adults, and older adults. METHODS:A systematic electronic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify studies published between 1980 and 2019. A modified Quality Index was applied to assess methodological quality, and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as the standardized mean differences. For the meta-analyses, a fixed or random effect model and the statistical heterogeneity were calculated using the I2 index. RESULTS:Twenty original full-length studies were included in the final analyses with a total of 587 healthy individuals evaluated, of which four studies analyzed the gait pattern of 227 children, 16 studies of 310 young adults, and three studies of 59 older adults. In general, gait speed affected the amplitude of spatiotemporal gait parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces with a decrease at slow speeds and increase at fast speeds in relation to the comfortable speed. Specifically, moderate-to-large effect sizes were found for each age group and speed: children (slow, - 3.61 to 0.59; fast, - 1.05 to 2.97), young adults (slow, - 3.56 to 4.06; fast, - 4.28 to 4.38), and older adults (slow, - 1.76 to 0.52; fast, - 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS:This review identified that speed affected the gait patterns of different populations with respect to the amplitude of spatiotemporal parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces. Specifically, most of the values analyzed decreased at slower speeds and increased at faster speeds. Therefore, the effects of speed on gait patterns should also be considered when comparing the gait analysis of pathological individuals with normal or control ones.

Project description:Gait speed is a measure of general fitness. Changing from usual (UGS) to maximum (MGS) gait speed requires coordinated action of many body systems. Gait speed reserve (GSR) is defined as MGS-UGS. From a shortlist of 88 features across five categories including sociodemographic, cognitive, and physiological, we aimed to find and compare the sets of predictors that best describe UGS, MGS, and GSR. For this, we leveraged data from 3,925 adults aged 50+ from Wave 3 of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA). Features were selected by a histogram gradient boosting regression-based stepwise feature selection pipeline. Each model's feature importance and input-output relationships were explored using TreeExplainer from the Shapely Additive Explanations explainable machine learning package. The mean Radj2 (SD) from fivefold cross-validation on training data and the Radj2 score on test data were 0.38 (0.04) and 0.41 for UGS, 0.45 (0.04) and 0.46 for MGS, and 0.19 (0.02) and 0.21 for GSR. Each model selected features across all categories. Features common to all models were age, grip strength, chair stands time, mean motor reaction time, and height. Exclusive to UGS and MGS were educational attainment, fear of falling, Montreal cognitive assessment errors, and orthostatic intolerance. Exclusive to MGS and GSR were body mass index (BMI), and number of medications. No features were selected exclusively for UGS and GSR. Features unique to UGS were resting-state pulse interval, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) depression, sit-to-stand difference in diastolic blood pressure, and left visual acuity. Unique to MGS were standard deviation in sustained attention to response task times, resting-state heart rate, smoking status, total heartbeat power during paced breathing, and visual acuity. Unique to GSR were accuracy proportion in a sound-induced flash illusion test, Mini-mental State Examination errors, and number of cardiovascular conditions. No interactions were present in the GSR model. The four features that overall gave the most impactful interactions in the UGS and MGS models were age, chair stands time, grip strength, and BMI. These findings may help provide new insights into the multisystem predictors of gait speed and gait speed reserve in older adults and support a network physiology approach to their study.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of footwear on the gait of children is poorly understood. This systematic review synthesises the evidence of the biomechanical effects of shoes on children during walking and running.MethodsStudy inclusion criteria were: barefoot and shod conditions; healthy children aged ? 16 years; sample size of n > 1. Novelty footwear was excluded. Studies were located by online database-searching, hand-searching and contact with experts. Two authors selected studies and assessed study methodology using the Quality Index. Meta-analysis of continuous variables for homogeneous studies was undertaken using the inverse variance approach. Significance level was set at P < 0.05. Heterogeneity was measured by I2. Where I2 > 25%, a random-effects model analysis was used and where I2 < 25%, a fixed-effects model was used.ResultsEleven studies were included. Sample size ranged from 4-898. Median Quality Index was 20/32 (range 11-27). Five studies randomised shoe order, six studies standardised footwear. Shod walking increased: velocity, step length, step time, base of support, double-support time, stance time, time to toe-off, sagittal tibia-rearfoot range of motion (ROM), sagittal tibia-foot ROM, ankle max-plantarflexion, Ankle ROM, foot lift to max-plantarflexion, 'subtalar' rotation ROM, knee sagittal ROM and tibialis anterior activity. Shod walking decreased: cadence, single-support time, ankle max-dorsiflexion, ankle at foot-lift, hallux ROM, arch length change, foot torsion, forefoot supination, forefoot width and midfoot ROM in all planes. Shod running decreased: long axis maximum tibial-acceleration, shock-wave transmission as a ratio of maximum tibial-acceleration, ankle plantarflexion at foot strike, knee angular velocity and tibial swing velocity. No variables increased during shod running.ConclusionsShoes affect the gait of children. With shoes, children walk faster by taking longer steps with greater ankle and knee motion and increased tibialis anterior activity. Shoes reduce foot motion and increase the support phases of the gait cycle. During running, shoes reduce swing phase leg speed, attenuate some shock and encourage a rearfoot strike pattern. The long-term effect of these changes on growth and development are currently unknown. The impact of footwear on gait should be considered when assessing the paediatric patient and evaluating the effect of shoe or in-shoe interventions.

Project description:BackgroundHabitual walking speed predicts many clinical conditions later in life, but it declines with age. However, which particular exercise intervention can minimize the age-related gait speed loss is unclear.PurposeOur objective was to determine the effects of strength, power, coordination, and multimodal exercise training on healthy old adults' habitual and fast gait speed.MethodsWe performed a computerized systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Knowledge from January 1984 up to December 2014. Search terms included 'Resistance training', 'power training', 'coordination training', 'multimodal training', and 'gait speed (outcome term). Inclusion criteria were articles available in full text, publication period over past 30 years, human species, journal articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, English as publication language, and subject age ≥65 years. The methodological quality of all eligible intervention studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. We computed weighted average standardized mean differences of the intervention-induced adaptations in gait speed using a random-effects model and tested for overall and individual intervention effects relative to no-exercise controls.ResultsA total of 42 studies (mean PEDro score of 5.0 ± 1.2) were included in the analyses (2495 healthy old adults; age 74.2 years [64.4-82.7]; body mass 69.9 ± 4.9 kg, height 1.64 ± 0.05 m, body mass index 26.4 ± 1.9 kg/m2, and gait speed 1.22 ± 0.18 m/s). The search identified only one power training study, therefore the subsequent analyses focused only on the effects of resistance, coordination, and multimodal training on gait speed. The three types of intervention improved gait speed in the three experimental groups combined (n = 1297) by 0.10 m/s (±0.12) or 8.4% (±9.7), with a large effect size (ES) of 0.84. Resistance (24 studies; n = 613; 0.11 m/s; 9.3%; ES: 0.84), coordination (eight studies, n = 198; 0.09 m/s; 7.6%; ES: 0.76), and multimodal training (19 studies; n = 486; 0.09 m/s; 8.4%, ES: 0.86) increased gait speed statistically and similarly.ConclusionsCommonly used exercise interventions can functionally and clinically increase habitual and fast gait speed and help slow the loss of gait speed or delay its onset.

Dataset Information

Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review.

Publications

Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets