↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines for Assessment of Gait and Reference Values for Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters in Older Adults: The Biomathics and Canadian Gait Consortiums Initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
328 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
Guidelines for Assessment of Gait and Reference Values for Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters in Older Adults: The Biomathics and Canadian Gait Consortiums Initiative
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Beauchet, Gilles Allali, Harmehr Sekhon, Joe Verghese, Sylvie Guilain, Jean-Paul Steinmetz, Reto W. Kressig, John M. Barden, Tony Szturm, Cyrille P. Launay, Sébastien Grenier, Louis Bherer, Teresa Liu-Ambrose, Vicky L. Chester, Michele L. Callisaya, Velandai Srikanth, Guillaume Léonard, Anne-Marie De Cock, Ryuichi Sawa, Gustavo Duque, Richard Camicioli, Jorunn L. Helbostad

Abstract

Background: Gait disorders, a highly prevalent condition in older adults, are associated with several adverse health consequences. Gait analysis allows qualitative and quantitative assessments of gait that improves the understanding of mechanisms of gait disorders and the choice of interventions. This manuscript aims (1) to give consensus guidance for clinical and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls in older adults aged 65 years and over, and (2) to provide reference values for spatiotemporal gait parameters based on the recorded footfalls in healthy older adults free of cognitive impairment and multi-morbidities. Methods: International experts working in a network of two different consortiums (i.e., Biomathics and Canadian Gait Consortium) participated in this initiative. First, they identified items of standardized information following the usual procedure of formulation of consensus findings. Second, they merged databases including spatiotemporal gait assessments with GAITRite® system and clinical information from the "Gait, cOgnitiOn & Decline" (GOOD) initiative and the Generation 100 (Gen 100) study. Only healthy-free of cognitive impairment and multi-morbidities (i.e., ≤ 3 therapeutics taken daily)-participants aged 65 and older were selected. Age, sex, body mass index, mean values, and coefficients of variation (CoV) of gait parameters were used for the analyses. Results: Standardized systematic assessment of three categories of items, which were demographics and clinical information, and gait characteristics (clinical and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls), were selected for the proposed guidelines. Two complementary sets of items were distinguished: a minimal data set and a full data set. In addition, a total of 954 participants (mean age 72.8 ± 4.8 years, 45.8% women) were recruited to establish the reference values. Performance of spatiotemporal gait parameters based on the recorded footfalls declined with increasing age (mean values and CoV) and demonstrated sex differences (mean values). Conclusions: Based on an international multicenter collaboration, we propose consensus guidelines for gait assessment and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls, and reference values for healthy older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 328 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 15%
Student > Master 47 14%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Researcher 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 97 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 10%
Engineering 31 9%
Sports and Recreations 27 8%
Neuroscience 25 8%
Other 44 13%
Unknown 123 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#929,848
of 25,123,315 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#414
of 7,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,051
of 322,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#15
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,123,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 322,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.