IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Anna K Stuck
  • Madeleine Bachmann
  • Pia Füllemann
  • Karen R Josephson
  • Andreas E Stuck

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna K Stuck & Madeleine Bachmann & Pia Füllemann & Karen R Josephson & Andreas E Stuck, 2020. "Effect of testing procedures on gait speed measurement: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234200
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234200
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234200&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234200?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshifumi Abe & Atsuhiko Matsunaga & Ryota Matsuzawa & Toshiki Kutsuna & Shuhei Yamamoto & Kei Yoneki & Manae Harada & Ryoma Ishikawa & Takaaki Watanabe & Atsushi Yoshida, 2016. "Determinants of Slow Walking Speed in Ambulatory Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Alexander M Keppler & Timur Nuritidinow & Arne Mueller & Holger Hoefling & Matthias Schieker & Ieuan Clay & Wolfgang Böcker & Julian Fürmetz, 2019. "Validity of accelerometry in step detection and gait speed measurement in orthogeriatric patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-11, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaghayegh Zihajehzadeh & Edward J Park, 2016. "Regression Model-Based Walking Speed Estimation Using Wrist-Worn Inertial Sensor," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.