Suppr超能文献

测试程序对步态速度测量的影响:系统评价。

Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Geriatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Geriatric Research Education & Clinical Center, Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 1;15(6):e0234200. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234200. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although gait speed is a widely used measure in older people, testing methods are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of testing procedures on resulting gait speed.

METHODS

We followed the PRISMA checklist for this systematic review. Two independent reviewers screened Pubmed and Embase for publications on pairwise comparisons of testing procedures of usual gait speed. Descriptives were abstracted from the included publications using a predefined extraction tool by two independent reviewers. We defined the cut-off for the minimal clinically imporant diffence in gait speed as 0.1 m/sec.

RESULTS

Of a total of 2109 records identified for screening, 29 reports on 53 pairwise comparisons were analyzed. The median (range) difference in gait speed for dynamic versus static start was 0.06 (-0.02 to 0.35) m/sec (14 reports); for longer versus shorter test distance 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.23) m/sec (14 reports); for automatic versus manual timing 0.00 (-0.05 to 0.07) m/sec (12 reports), for hard versus soft surfaces -0.11 (-0.18 to 0.08) m/sec (six reports), and electronic walkways versus usual walk test 0.04 (-0.08 to 0.14) m/sec (seven reports), respectively. No report compared the effect of finishing procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of starting procedure, the length of the test distance, and the surface of the walkway may have a clinically relevant impact on measured gait speed. Manual timing resulted in statistically significant differences of measured gait speed as compared to automatic timing, but was below the level of clinical importance. These results emphasize that it is key to use a strictly standardized method for obtaining a reliable and valid measurement of gait speed.

摘要

背景

虽然步态速度是老年人中广泛使用的测量指标,但测试方法差异很大。我们进行了一项系统评价,以调查测试程序对结果步态速度的影响。

方法

我们遵循 PRISMA 清单进行了这项系统评价。两名独立审查员筛选了 Pubmed 和 Embase 上关于常规步态速度测试程序的两两比较的出版物。两名独立审查员使用预先定义的提取工具从纳入的出版物中提取描述性信息。我们将步态速度的最小临床重要差异定义为 0.1 m/sec。

结果

在总共筛选出的 2109 条记录中,有 29 份报告分析了 53 对比较。动态与静态起始之间的步态速度差异中位数(范围)为 0.06(-0.02 至 0.35)m/sec(14 项研究);较长与较短测试距离之间为 0.04(-0.05 至 0.23)m/sec(14 项研究);自动与手动计时之间为 0.00(-0.05 至 0.07)m/sec(12 项研究),硬与软表面之间为-0.11(-0.18 至 0.08)m/sec(6 项研究),电子步道与常规步行测试之间为 0.04(-0.08 至 0.14)m/sec(7 项研究)。没有报告比较完成程序的效果。

结论

起始程序的类型、测试距离的长度和步道的表面可能对测量的步态速度有临床相关影响。手动计时与自动计时相比,测量的步态速度有统计学显著差异,但低于临床重要性水平。这些结果强调,使用严格标准化的方法获取可靠和有效的步态速度测量结果至关重要。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验