Assessment of the kinematic variability among 12 motion analysis laboratories

Gorton, George E.; Hébert, David; Gannotti, Mary

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.10.060

Cited by 232 publications

(237 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with the results of research by schwartz et al [2], Manca et al [3], Gorton et al [6], Assi et al [7], steinwender et al [9] and Kadaba et al [11] regardless of whether the study was conducted on children or adults, healthy subjects or those with various medical conditions. All researchers agree that hip joint rotation is characterized by the greatest amount of variability.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inter-examiner, within-session and between-session repeatability of kinematic gait parameters among adult subjects

Leszczewska¹,

Czaprowski²,

Pawłowska³

et al. 2018

Hum Mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This research aimed to assess the repeatability of results obtained when analysing gait by means of a system designed for objective gait analysis in a single laboratory setting by a single examiner within-session and between-sessions. Methods. For the purpose of this research, the bTs smart-D movement analysis system, produced by Capture Motion system of Italy, was used. Four healthy adults were examined. The subjects took part in three gait analysis testing sessions, with each session separated by a two-day break. During each session, two sets of measurements were taken for each subject. statistical analysis was performed with statsoft's statistica 7.1 software. Results. Within each session, all examined temporal and spatial parameters were found to be repeatable. Only in hip and knee joint rotation was repeatability not confirmed within session. between the sessions, repeatability was confirmed in pelvic rotation, abduction/adduction of the knee joint and for all foot kinematic parameters. Conclusions. Conducting gait analysis by one researcher does not guarantee obtaining repeatable results for all measured kinematic parameters, either within one session or between sessions; caution ought to be exercised when interpreting results. Among the studied parameters, hip and knee joint rotation provided the most difficulty in obtaining repeatable results. For this reason, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions based on such data require the utmost consideration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…some specific sources of experimental errors have been well analysed and cognized [1,2,5,6]. The main factor determining the variability of results is believed to be the incorrect placement of markers on the subject's body [1][2][3]7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-examiner, within-session and between-session repeatability of kinematic gait parameters among adult subjects

Leszczewska¹,

Czaprowski²,

Pawłowska³

et al. 2018

Hum Mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the clinical gait analysis matures, there is a growing requirement for standardization between services [4,5]. This has been underlined by two articles [6,7] emphasising the differences between laboratories in 3d gait analysis data, raising concern within the orthopaedic community [8,9]. The rationale for collecting reference datasets in the future should thus be to harmonise protocols through comparison between different services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparison of normative reference data from different gait analysis services

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of normative data between gait analysis services offers the potential to harmonise data collection protocols. This paper presents a method for such a comparison based on an assumption that the root mean square difference from the inter-service mean is a reflection of systematic differences in protocols and that the average standard deviation includes a component attributable to within-centre measurement variability.Substantial normative datasets from two highly respected clinical services were compared. The RMS difference for the difference from the inter-centre mean was less than 1.7° for all kinematic variables apart from hip rotation (2.9°) and foot progression (2.1°), less than 0.1Nm/kg for all joint moments and than 0.21W/kg for all joint powers. The two centres showed very similar normative standard deviations.The data demonstrates a high degree of consistency between data from two highly regarded gait analysis services and establishes a baseline against which other services can assess their performance. An electronic appendix includes data to facilitate this comparison. THE COMPARISON OF NORMATIVE REFERENCE DATA FROM DIFFERENT GAIT ANALYSIS SERVICES ABSTRACTComparison of normative data between gait analysis services offers the potential to harmonise data collection protocols. This paper presents a method for such a comparison based on an assumption that the root mean square difference from the inter-service mean is a reflection of systematic differences in protocols and that the average standard deviation includes a component attributable to within-centre measurement variability.Substantial normative datasets from two highly respected clinical services were compared.The RMS difference for the difference from the inter-centre mean was less than 1.7° for all kinematic variables apart from hip rotation (2.9°) and foot progression (2.1°), less than 0.1Nm/kg for all joint moments and than 0.21W/kg for all joint powers. The two centres showed very similar normative standard deviations.The data demonstrates a high degree of consistency between data from two highly regarded gait analysis services and establishes a baseline against which other services can assess theirperformance. An electronic appendix includes data to facilitate this comparison.

show abstract

“…A deviation due to experimental error most commonly arises from inaccurate and inconsistent placement of reflective markers over anatomical landmarks [3,4] but can also include technical aspects such as occluded markers or tracking errors. A genuine deviation is a trusted abnormality that is a consequence of the patient's biomechanical or neuro-musculo-skeletal constraints and are in accord with the patient's clinical history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%