背景:已经研究了步态可变的最小脚趾间隙(MTC),涉及老年人与跌倒相关的研究。然而,由于测量MTC和鞋子状况的方法不同,比较研究很困难,这可能会影响协议。测量方法可以包括使用单个虚拟点(SVP),多个虚拟点(MVPS),或meta骨头部标记(基于标记)。MTC研究中使用的鞋类型包括标准鞋(SS),个人鞋(PS),和赤脚(BF)的条件。
目标:协议是什么,评分者间和评分者内的可靠性,和3种常用的MTC测量方法的可重复性(SVP,MVPS,基于标记的)在光学运动捕捉系统的3种鞋条件下(SS,PS,BF)?
方法:12名健康的年轻人(平均[SD]23.8[1.9]年,7名男性)参加了这项观察性研究。按照随机顺序,参与者在SS中以自己选择的正常和慢速速度完成了25项步行试验,PS,和高炉条件,而红外摄像机记录制造商的轨迹。每个参与者在收集每个鞋子状况的数据之前进行至少1分钟的熟悉试验。统计分析包括Bland-Altman95%协议界限(LOA)分析,类间相关系数(ICC)分析,用于评估者之间和内部的可靠性,和重复性系数(RC)。
结果:与基于标记的方法相比,SVP和MVPS具有更严格的95%LOA,特别是在SS和BF条件下。在这些鞋子条件下,评价者间的可靠性良好至优异。在所有鞋条件下,所有方法的内部可靠性都是优异的(ICC>.90)。每种方法的RC非常相似,不超过1.02厘米。
结论:该研究提供了MTC方法之间一致性的估计,并表明只有SVP或MVPS在SS/BF条件下产生类似的结果。此外,MTC的“真实”变化要求差异大于1.02cm。
BACKGROUND: The gait variable minimum toe clearance (MTC) has been investigated concerning trip-related fall research in older adults. However, comparing studies is difficult due to the different methods used to measure MTC and shoe conditions, which may affect
agreement. Measurement methods can include using a single virtual point (SVP), multiple virtual points (MVPS), or metatarsal head markers (marker-based). The shoe types used in MTC studies include standard shoes (SS), personal shoes (PS), and barefoot (BF) conditions.
OBJECTIVE: What is the
agreement, inter and intra-rater reliability, and repeatability for the 3 commonly used methods of measuring MTC (SVP, MVPS, marker-based) under the 3 shoe conditions for optical motion capture systems (SS, PS, BF)?
METHODS: Twelve healthy young adults (mean [SD] 23.8 [1.9] years,7 males) participated in this observational study. In a randomized order, participants completed 25 walking trials at self-selected normal and slow speeds in SS, PS, and BF conditions while infrared cameras recorded the maker trajectories. Each participant performed a familiarization trial for at least 1 minute before collecting data on each shoe condition. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman 95 % limits of
agreement (LOA) analyses, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses for inter- and intra-rater reliability, and the repeatability coefficient (RC).
RESULTS: The SVP and MVPS had a tighter 95 % LOA than the marker-based method, particularly under SS and BF conditions. The inter-rater reliability was good to excellent under these shoe conditions. Intra-reliability for all methods under all shoe conditions was excellent (ICC >.90). The RC was very similar for each method, with none exceeding 1.02 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides estimates of the
agreement between MTC methods and suggests that only SVP or MVPS produced similar results in SS/BF conditions. Additionally, a \"true\" change in MTC requires a difference greater than 1.02 cm.