Department of Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Gait Posture. 2020 Feb;76:92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.033. Epub 2019 Nov 10.
Improvement of balance control is an important rehabilitation goal for patients with motor and sensory impairments. To quantify balance control during walking, various stability outcome measures have described differences between healthy controls and patient groups with balance problems. To be useful for the evaluation of interventions or monitoring of individual patients, stability outcome measures need to be reliable.
What is the test-retest reliability of six stability outcome measures during gait?
Patients with balance problems (n = 45) and healthy controls (n = 20) performed two times a two-minute walk test (2MWT). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability; CR) were used to evaluate the test-retest reliability of six stability outcome measures: dynamic stability margin (DSM), margin of stability (MoS), distance between the extrapolated centre of mass (XCoM) and centre of pressure (CoP) in anterior-posterior (XCoM-CoP) and medial-lateral (XCoM-CoP) direction, and inclination angle between centre of mass (CoM) and CoP in anterior-posterior (CoM-CoP) and medial-lateral (CoM-CoP) direction. A two way mixed ANOVA was performed to reveal measurement- and group-effects.
The ICCs of all stability outcome measures ranged between 0.51 and 0.97. Significant differences between the measurements were found for the DSM (p = 0.017), XCoM-CoP (p = 0.008) and CoM-CoP (p = 0.001). Significant differences between controls and patients were found for all stability outcome measures (p < 0.01) except for the MoS (p = 0.32). For the XCoM-CoP distances and CoM-CoP angles, the CRs were smaller than the difference between patients and controls.
Based on the ICCs, the reliability of all stability outcome measures was moderate to excellent. Since the XCoM-CoP and CoM-CoP showed no differences between the measurements and smaller CRs than the differences between patients and controls, the XCoM-CoP and CoM-CoP seem the most promising stability outcome measures to evaluate interventions and monitor individual patients.
改善平衡控制是运动和感觉障碍患者康复的一个重要目标。为了量化行走时的平衡控制,各种稳定性结果测量方法已经描述了健康对照组和有平衡问题的患者组之间的差异。为了对干预措施进行评估或对个体患者进行监测,稳定性结果测量方法需要具有可靠性。
在步态期间,六种稳定性结果测量方法的测试-重测信度是多少?
患有平衡问题的患者(n=45)和健康对照者(n=20)进行了两次两分钟步行测试(2MWT)。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和 Bland-Altman 分析(重复性系数;CR)来评估六种稳定性结果测量方法的测试-重测信度:动态稳定裕度(DSM)、稳定裕度(MoS)、质心(CoM)与压力中心(CoP)在前后(XCoM-CoP)和内外(XCoM-CoP)方向上的距离,以及前后(CoM-CoP)和内外(CoM-CoP)方向上 CoM 和 CoP 之间的倾斜角。进行了双因素混合方差分析以揭示测量和组间效应。
所有稳定性结果测量方法的 ICC 值介于 0.51 到 0.97 之间。在 DSM(p=0.017)、XCoM-CoP(p=0.008)和 CoM-CoP(p=0.001)方面,测量之间存在显著差异。在所有稳定性结果测量方法方面,与对照组相比,患者之间存在显著差异(p<0.01),但 MoS 除外(p=0.32)。对于 XCoM-CoP 距离和 CoM-CoP 角度,CR 小于患者与对照组之间的差异。
根据 ICCs,所有稳定性结果测量方法的可靠性为中等至良好。由于 XCoM-CoP 和 CoM-CoP 在测量之间没有差异,并且 CR 小于患者与对照组之间的差异,因此 XCoM-CoP 和 CoM-CoP 似乎是评估干预措施和监测个体患者最有前途的稳定性结果测量方法。