The purpose of the study was to evaluate the preciseness and repeatability of EMED-SF platform data collection using two different protocols. Gait variables of five healthy women and five men, with an average age of 27.3 ± 3.2 years, weighing 67.5 ± 13.3 kg, were evaluated. With a one-step and a three-step approach of data collection, peak pressure, pressure-time integral, and contact time were measured. Peak pressures were not significantly different between both methods. Significant differences were found between both methods in total contact time and pressure-time integral. Both methods were comparable in peak pressures (error between methods = 7.0), while the one-step protocol was more repeatable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.59) than the three-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.36). The error between methods for total contact time and pressure-time integral were 143.3 and 50.1, respectively, suggesting that the two protocols lead to different results. The one-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.40) had a higher repeatability than the three-step protocol (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.31). The one-step protocol has some advantages over the three-step protocol as far as repeatability, simplicity, convenience, and time conservation are concerned. For measuring total contact time and pressure-time integrals, both methods have comparable repeatability, although the protocols lead to different outcomes.
- Diabetes mellitus
- Foot pressure
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine