SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Vertical Ground Reaction Forces in Parkinson's Disease: A Speed-Matched Comparative Analysis with Healthy Subjects.

Sensors (Basel) · 2023-12-28

DOI: 10.3390/s24010179PMID: 38203042

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 aimed to investigate and compare the vertical Ground Reaction Forces (vGRFs) of patients with Parkinson's Disease (PwPD) and healthy subjects (HS) when the confounding effect of walking speed was absent. Therefore, eighteen PwPD and eighteen age- and linear walking speed-matched HS were recruited. Using plantar pressure insoles, participants walked along linear and curvilinear paths at self-selected speeds. Interestingly, PwPD exhibited similar walking speed to HS during curvilinear trajectories (p = 0.48) and similar vGRF during both linear and curvilinear paths. In both groups, vGRF at initial contact and terminal stance was higher during linear walking, while vGRF at mid-stance was higher in curvilinear trajectories. Similarly, the time to peak vGRF at each phase showed no significant group differences. The vGRF timing variability was different between the two groups, particularly at terminal stance (p < 0.001). In conclusion, PwPD and HS showed similar modifications in vGRF and a similar reduction in gait speed during curvilinear paths when matched for linear walking speed. This emphasized the importance of considering walking speed when assessing gait dynamics in PwPD. This study also suggests the possibility of the variability of specific temporal measures in differentiating the gait patterns of PwPD versus those of HS, even in the early stages of the disease.

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.