A guide for quality assessment of instrumental gait analysis data

Ms Stella Kravtsov1, Dr Ettie Ben-Shabat2, Dr  Corey  Joseph1, Dr Anna  Murphy1

1Monash Health,  2Alfred Health,

Background: Instrumental gait analyses (GA) are used both clinically and in research. They provide valuable objective quantitative measurements of spatiotemporal, kinematic and kinetic gait parameters. When conducting systematic reviews researchers are required to assess the quality of study designs and methodology. Criteria are recommended for assessing different types of study designs such as intervention-controlled, pre-post intervention and observation type studies. To the best of our knowledge, no such criteria are recommended for assessing the quality of data reported from studies of instrumental GA.

Method: Based on a literature review and discussion panel we developed a list of 10 criteria for assessing the quality of data reported from instrumental GA. These criteria were then used in a systematic review designed to examine the instrumental GA parameters used for studying participants with lower limb spasticity.

Results: Thirty-seven papers were included in the systematic review. Thirty-four full research papers, of which 4 reported on 0-3/10 criteria, 26 on 3-5/10, and 4 on 6-7/10.

Criteria most commonly reported:

  1. Gait speed tested 91%
  2. If the GA system is 2D/3D 88%
  3. Make and version of GA system (brand, number of cameras, capture rate) 85%
  4. Biomechanical model used (evidence based) 77%
  5. Marker placement procedure (assess validity) 65%

Criteria infrequently reported:

  1. Anthropometric measurements procedure 15%
  2. University / hospital-based systems (establish likely rigour of system testing) 14%

Criteria never reported:

  1. Average systematic error of the GA system (accuracy)
  2. Reliability of the GA system (consistent performance)
  3. Reliability and repeatability of the person applying the markers

Discussion: It is difficult to evaluate the quality of data reported in instrumental GA studies due to lack of standard reporting criteria. We developed and tested 10 standard reporting criteria that can be used when assessing the quality of instrumental GA data.


Biography: To be confirmed

NAHC Conferences

2007, Hobart (7th NAHC)

2009, Canberra (8th NAHC)

2012, Canberra (9th NAHC)

2013, Brisbane (10th NAHC)

2015, Melbourne (11th NAHC)

2017, Sydney (12th NAHC)

2019, Brisbane (13th NAHC)

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.

Photo Credits: Tourism & Events Queensland

© 2017 Conference Design Pty Ltd