↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change Values for Predictions of Knee Forces during Gait and Stair Ascent Derived from the FreeBody Musculoskeletal Model of the Lower Limb

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change Values for Predictions of Knee Forces during Gait and Stair Ascent Derived from the FreeBody Musculoskeletal Model of the Lower Limb
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phil D. B. Price, Conor Gissane, Daniel J. Cleather

Abstract

FreeBody is a musculoskeletal model of the lower limb used to calculate predictions of muscle and joint contact forces. The validation of FreeBody has been described in a number of publications; however, its reliability has yet to be established. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to establish the test-retest reliability of FreeBody in a population of healthy adults in order to add support to previous and future research using FreeBody that demonstrates differences between cohorts after an intervention. We hypothesized that test-retest estimations of knee contact forces from FreeBody would demonstrate a high intra-class correlation. Kinematic and kinetic data from nine older participants (4 men: mean age = 63 ± 11 years; 5 women: mean age = 49 ± 4 years) performing level walking and stair ascent was collected on consecutive days and then analyzed using FreeBody. There was a good level of intra-session agreement between the waveforms for the individual trials of each activity during testing session 1 (R = 0.79-0.97). Similarly, overall there was a good inter-session agreement within subjects (R = 0.69-0.97) although some subjects showed better agreement than others. There was a high level of agreement between the group mean waveforms of the two sessions for all variables (R = 0.882-0.997). The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were very high for peak tibiofemoral joint contact forces (TFJ) and hamstring forces during gait, for peak patellofemoral joint contact forces and quadriceps forces during stair ascent and for peak lateral TFJ and the proportion of TFJ accounted for by the medial compartment during both tasks (ICC = 0.86-0.96). Minimal detectable change (MDC) of the peak knee forces during gait ranged between 0.43 and 1.53 × body weight (18-170% of the mean peak values). The smallest MDCs were found for medial TFJ share (4.1 and 5.8% for walking and stair ascent, respectively, or 4.8 and 6.7% of the mean peak values). In conclusion, the results of this study support the use of FreeBody to investigate the effect of interventions on muscle and joint contact forces at the cohort level, but care should be taken if using FreeBody at the subject level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Engineering 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,872,845
of 24,271,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#360
of 7,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,614
of 447,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,271,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,718 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 447,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.