↓ Skip to main content

Validity and reliability of a portable gait analysis system for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics: comparison to an instrumented treadmill

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity and reliability of a portable gait analysis system for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics: comparison to an instrumented treadmill
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0115-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Donath, Oliver Faude, Eric Lichtenstein, Corina Nüesch, Annegret Mündermann

Abstract

Gait analysis serves as an important tool for clinicians and other health professionals to assess gait patterns related to functional limitations due to neurological or orthopedic conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a body-worn inertial sensor system (RehaGait®) for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics compared to a stationary treadmill (Zebris) and the reliability of both systems at different walking speeds and slopes. Gait analysis was performed during treadmill walking at different speeds (habitual walking speed (normal speed); 15 % above normal walking speed; 15 % below normal walking speed) and slopes (0 % slope; 15 % slope) in 22 healthy participants twice 1 week apart. Walking speed, stride length, cadence and stride time were computed from the inertial sensor system and the stationary treadmill and compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. Effect sizes of differences between systems were assessed using Cohen's d, and limits of agreement and systematic bias were computed. The RehaGait® system slightly overestimated stride length (+2.7 %) and stride time (+0.8 %) and underestimate cadence (-1.5 %) with small effect sizes for all speeds and slopes (Cohen's d ≤ 0.44) except slow speed at 15 % slope (Cohen's d > 0.80). Walking speed obtained with the RehaGait® system closely matched the speed set on the treadmill tachometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were excellent for speed, cadence and stride time and for stride length at normal and fast speed at 0 % slope (ICC: .91-1.00). Good ICC values were found for stride length at slow speed at 0 % slope and all speeds at 15 % slope (ICC: .73-.90). Both devices had excellent reliability for most gait characteristics (ICC: .91-1.00) except good reliability for the RehaGait® for stride length at normal and fast speed at 0 % slope and at slow speed at 15 % slope (ICC: .80-.87). Larger limits of agreement for walking at 15 % slope suggests that uphill walking may influence the reliability of the RehaGait® system. The RehaGait® is a valid and reliable tool for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics during level and inclined treadmill walking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 235 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 18%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 57 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 18%
Engineering 41 17%
Sports and Recreations 25 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Computer Science 15 6%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 72 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,849,331
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#480
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,329
of 403,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.