Background Clinical gait analysis is widely used to aid the assessment and diagnosis of symptomatic pathologies. Foot function pressure systems such as F-scan and analysis of the spatial–temporal parameters of gait using GAITRite® can provide clinicians with a more comprehensive assessment. There are systems however, such as Strideway™ that can measure these parameters simultaneously but can be expensive. F-Scan in-shoe pressure data is normally collected whilst the person is walking on a hard floor surface. The effects of the softer Gaitrite® mat upon the F-Scan in-shoe sensor pressure data is unknown. This study therefore aimed to assess the agreement between F-Scan pressure measurements taken from a standard walkway (normal hard floor), and those from a GAITRite® walkway to establish whether these two pieces of equipment (in-shoe F-Scan and GAITRite®) can be used simultaneously, as a cost-effective alternative. Method Twenty-three participants first walked on a standard floor and then on a GAITRite® walkway wearing F-Scan pressure sensor insoles with same footwear. They repeated these walks three times on each surface. Mid gait protocols were utilised by analysing the contact pressure of the first and second metatarsophalangeal joint of the third, fifth and seventh step from each walk. For both joints, 95% Bland–Altman Limits of Agreement was used to determine a level of agreement between the two surfaces, using mean values from pressure data collected from participants who successfully completed all required walks. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient were calculated as indices of reliability. Findings ICC results for the hard surface and the GAITRrite® walkway at the first and second metatarsophalangeal joints were 0.806 and 0.991 respectively. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient for the first and second metatarsophalangeal joints were calculated to be 0.899 and 0.956 respectively. Both sets of statistics indicate very good reproducibility. Bland–Altman plots revealed good repeatability of data at both joints. Conclusion The level of agreement in F-Scan plantar pressures observed between walking on a normal hard floor and on a GAITRite® walkway was very high, suggesting that it is feasible to use F-Scan with GAITRite® together in a clinical setting, as an alternative to other less cost-effective standalone systems. Although it is assumed combining F-Scan with GAITRite® does not affect spatiotemporal analysis, this was not validated in this study.

BackgroundClinical gait analysis is widely used to aid the assessment and diagnosis of symptomatic pathologies. Equipment based analysis provides clinicians with a more comprehensive assessment using pressure systems such as F-scan, or analysis of the spatial-temporal parameters of gait using GAITRite. There are systems however such as Strideway™ that can measure these parameters simultaneously, but can be expensive. This study aimed to determine whether standalone systems can be used collectively while still providing quality data, as a cost-effective alternative.MethodsTwenty-six participants walked on a standard floor and a GAITRite walkway, three times wearing the F-Scan system. Mid gait protocols were utilised by analysing the contact pressure of the 2 nd metatarsophalangeal joint of the third, fifth and seventh step from each walk. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine a level of agreement between the two surfaces, using mean values from all walks of all participants who successfully completed all required walks. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient were calculated as indices of reliability.ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.991 and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient for the data was calculated to be 0.956, indicating very good reproducibility.ConclusionsThe level of agreement in plantar pressures observed on the two surfaces was very high, suggesting that it is feasible to use F-Scan and GAITRite® together in a clinical setting, as an alternative to other less cost-effective standalone systems.