4.6 Article

Gait Analysis in Children with Cerebral Palsy: Are Plantar Pressure Insoles a Reliable Tool?

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22145234

Keywords

plantar pressure; cerebral palsy; gait analysis; reliability; insoles

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT), through CIPER (unit 447) [UIDB/00447/2020, PTDC/EMD-EMD/5804/2020]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDB/00447/2020, PTDC/EMD-EMD/5804/2020] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of plantar pressure insole variables in children with CP. The results showed high test-retest reliability for most variables and the variability observed between sessions may be attributed to the heterogeneous sub-diagnosis of CP.
Cerebral palsy (CP) is a common cause of motor disability, and pedobarography is a useful, non-invasive, portable, and accessible tool; is easy to use in a clinical setting; and can provide plenty of information about foot-soil interaction and gait deviations. The reliability of this method in children with CP is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of plantar pressure insole variables in children with CP. Eight children performed two trials 8 +/- 2.5 days apart, using foot insoles to collect plantar pressure data. Whole and segmented foot measurements were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The variability of the data was measured by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the MDC/ICC values demonstrated high test-retest reliability for most variables, ranging from good to excellent (ICC >= 0.60). The SEM and the MDC values were considered low for the different variables. The variability observed between sessions may be attributed to the heterogeneous sub-diagnosis of CP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available