Reproducibility of gait analysis variables

One-step versus three-step method of data acquisition

Edgar J G Peters, Ana Urukalo, John G. Fleischli, Lawrence A. Lavery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)206-212
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
Volume41
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Gait
Pressure

Keywords

  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Foot pressure
  • Gait
  • Repeatability
  • Ulceration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Reproducibility of gait analysis variables : One-step versus three-step method of data acquisition. / Peters, Edgar J G; Urukalo, Ana; Fleischli, John G.; Lavery, Lawrence A.

In: Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2002, p. 206-212.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fcdab724e44a4dd78ac13817775851cc,
title = "Reproducibility of gait analysis variables: One-step versus three-step method of data acquisition",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Diabetes mellitus, Foot pressure, Gait, Repeatability, Ulceration",
author = "Peters, {Edgar J G} and Ana Urukalo and Fleischli, {John G.} and Lavery, {Lawrence A.}",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "206--212",
journal = "Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery",
issn = "1067-2516",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproducibility of gait analysis variables

T2 - One-step versus three-step method of data acquisition

AU - Peters, Edgar J G

AU - Urukalo, Ana

AU - Fleischli, John G.

AU - Lavery, Lawrence A.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Diabetes mellitus

KW - Foot pressure

KW - Gait

KW - Repeatability

KW - Ulceration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036057481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036057481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 206

EP - 212

JO - Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery

JF - Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery

SN - 1067-2516

IS - 4

ER -