SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Comparative Analysis of Symmetry Indices for Spatiotemporal Gait Features in Early Parkinson's Disease.

Neurol Int · 2023-09-07

DOI: 10.3390/neurolint15030070PMID: 37755361

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

This study compared the five most commonly used equations for calculating gait symmetry in discrete variables among Parkinson's disease patients. Twelve patients (five women and seven men) performed ten consecutive gait trials on a 10 m walkway. Gait data were collected using eight optoelectronic cameras (100 fr/s). The analysis focused on various spatiotemporal parameters, including cadence, step time, stride time, single support, double support, walking speed, step length, stride length, step width, and foot angle. Five symmetry indices were calculated for each trial rather than averaging the ten recorded trials. The variability in and reliability of each symmetry equation were assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were produced to visualize the agreement between each pair of methods for each spatiotemporal parameter. The results revealed that the symmetry ratio method exhibited lower variability and higher reliability compared with the other four indices across all spatiotemporal gait parameters. However, it was found that the reliability of a single trial was generally poor, regardless of the symmetry calculation formula used. Therefore, we recommend basing measurements of gait asymmetry in Parkinson's disease on multiple trials.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.