Comparison of programs for determining temporal-spatial gait variables from instrumented walkway data: PKmas versus GAITRite.
Comparison of programs for determining temporal-spatial gait variables from instrumented walkway data: PKmas versus GAITRite.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1756-0500-7-542
复制
发表时间：
2014-08-18
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Helbostad, Jorunn L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Egerton, Thorlene;Thingstad, Pernille;Helbostad, Jorunn L
背景：时空步态变量的测量在衰老研究中很常见，有多种可用的方法。本研究调查了两种处理仪表走道数据的不同程序所产生的时空步态结果的差异。方法：使用 GAITRite 硬件从 86 名健康老年人和 44 名髋部骨折手术修复后四个月的老年人收集数据。使用 GAITRite 和 PKmas 处理程序从相同的原始客流量数据中导出时空变量。结果：两个程序之间大多数变量的平均差异可以忽略不计，包括速度（平均差异 0.3±0.6 厘米/秒，或平均 GAITRite 速度的 0.3%）。检查的所有 18 个步态变量的平均绝对百分比差异范围从步幅持续时间的 0.04% 到足部角度的 66%。除了基本宽度、足部角度、步长变异性、步长变异性、步长变异性和步宽变异性之外，所有变量的 ICC 几乎都是完美的 (≥0.99)，但这些变量均高于 0.84。基部宽度（PKmas 值比 GAITRite 低 1.6 厘米）和足部角度（PKMAS 值比 GAITRite 高 0.7°）存在系统差异。这些差异可以通过程序之间定义和计算的差异来解释。结论：研究表明，对于大多数变量，两个程序的结果可以互换使用，用于评估使用 GAITRite 硬件收集的老年人的步态。然而，进一步的研究将有助于 PKMAS 得出的基部宽度和足部角度的有效性和可靠性。
BACKGROUND: Measurement of temporal-spatial gait variables is common in aging research with several methods available. This study investigated the differences in temporal-spatial gait outcomes derived from two different programs for processing instrumented walkway data.METHOD: Data were collected with GAITRite hardware from 86 healthy older people and 44 older people four months following surgical repair of hip fracture. Temporal-spatial variables were derived using both GAITRite and PKmas processing programs from the same raw footfall data.RESULTS: The mean differences between the two programs for most variables were negligible, including for Speed (mean difference 0.3±0.6cm/sec, or 0.3% of the mean GAITRite Speed). The mean absolute percentage difference for all 18 gait variables examined ranged from 0.04% for Stride Duration to 66% for Foot Angle. The ICCs were almost perfect (≥0.99) for all variables apart from Base Width, Foot Angle, Stride Length Variability, Step Length Variability, Step Duration Variability and Step Width Variability, which were all never-the-less above 0.84. There were systematic differences for Base Width (PKmas values 1.6cm lower than GAITRite) and Foot Angle (PKMAS values 0.7° higher than GAITRite). The differences can be explained by the differences in definitions and calculations between the programs.CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that for most variables the outcomes from both programs can be used interchangeably for evaluation of gait among older people collected with GAITRite hardware. However, validity and reliability for Base Width and Foot Angle derived by PKMAS would benefit from further investigation.