Between-site equivalence of turning speed assessments using inertial measurement units.
Gait
IMU
Multi-site study
Turning
Journal
Gait & posture
ISSN: 1879-2219
Titre abrégé: Gait Posture
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9416830
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
30
03
2021
revised:
31
08
2021
accepted:
03
09
2021
pubmed:
17
9
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
16
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Turning is a component of gait that requires planning for movement of multiple body segments and the sophisticated integration of sensory information from the vestibular, visual, and somatosensory systems. These aspects of turning have led to growing interest to quantify turning in clinical populations to characterize deficits or identify disease progression. However, turning may be affected by environmental differences, and the degree to which turning assessments are comparable across research or clinical sites has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which peak turning speeds are equivalent between two sites for a variety of mobility tasks. Data were collected at two different sites using separate healthy young adult participants (n = 47 participants total), but recruited using identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants at each site completed three turning tasks: a one-minute walk (1 MW) along a six-meter walkway, a modified Illinois Agility Test (mIAT), and a custom clinical turning course (CCTC). Peak yaw turning speeds were extracted from wearable inertial sensors on the head, trunk, and pelvis. Between-site differences and two one-sided tests (TOST) were used to determine equivalence between sites, based on a minimum effect size reported between individuals with mild traumatic brain injury and healthy control subjects. No outcomes were different between sites, and equivalence was determined for 6/21 of the outcomes. These findings suggest that some turning tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies. The equivalence results are also dependent on the minimum effect size of interest; nearly all outcomes were equivalent across sites when larger minimum effect sizes of interest were used. Together, these results suggest some tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies and literature-based comparisons.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Turning is a component of gait that requires planning for movement of multiple body segments and the sophisticated integration of sensory information from the vestibular, visual, and somatosensory systems. These aspects of turning have led to growing interest to quantify turning in clinical populations to characterize deficits or identify disease progression. However, turning may be affected by environmental differences, and the degree to which turning assessments are comparable across research or clinical sites has not yet been evaluated.
RESEARCH QUESTION
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which peak turning speeds are equivalent between two sites for a variety of mobility tasks.
METHODS
Data were collected at two different sites using separate healthy young adult participants (n = 47 participants total), but recruited using identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants at each site completed three turning tasks: a one-minute walk (1 MW) along a six-meter walkway, a modified Illinois Agility Test (mIAT), and a custom clinical turning course (CCTC). Peak yaw turning speeds were extracted from wearable inertial sensors on the head, trunk, and pelvis. Between-site differences and two one-sided tests (TOST) were used to determine equivalence between sites, based on a minimum effect size reported between individuals with mild traumatic brain injury and healthy control subjects.
RESULTS
No outcomes were different between sites, and equivalence was determined for 6/21 of the outcomes. These findings suggest that some turning tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies. The equivalence results are also dependent on the minimum effect size of interest; nearly all outcomes were equivalent across sites when larger minimum effect sizes of interest were used.
SIGNIFICANCE
Together, these results suggest some tasks and outcome measures may be better suited for multi-site studies and literature-based comparisons.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34530311
pii: S0966-6362(21)00473-2
doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.09.164
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
245-251Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.