4.5 Review

SIAMOC position paper on gait analysis in clinical practice: General requirements, methods and appropriateness. Results of an Italian consensus conference

Journal

GAIT & POSTURE
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 252-260

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.08.003

Keywords

Human movement; Gait analysis; Clinics; Consensus conference; Stereophotogrammetry; EMG; Force plate; Kinematics; Cerebral pulsy; Brain injuries; Amputee; Amputation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gait analysis is recognized as a useful assessment tool in the field of human movement research. However, doubts remain on its real effectiveness as a clinical tool, i.e. on its capability to change the diagnostic-therapeutic practice. In particular, the conditions in which evidence of a favorable cost-benefit ratio is found and the methodology for properly conducting and interpreting the exam are not identified clearly. To provide guidelines for the use of Gait Analysis in the context of rehabilitation medicine, SIAMOC (the Italian Society of Clinical Movement Analysis) promoted a National Consensus Conference which was held in Bologna on September 14th, 2013. The resulting recommendations were the result of a three-stage process entailing i) the preparation of working documents on specific open issues, ii) the holding of the consensus meeting, and iii) the drafting of consensus statements by an external Jury. The statements were formulated based on scientific evidence or experts' opinion, when the quality/quantity of the relevant literature was deemed insufficient. The aim of this work is to disseminate the consensus statements. These are divided into 13 questions grouped in three areas of interest: 1) General requirements and management, 2) Methodological and instrumental issues, and 3) Scientific evidence and clinical appropriateness. SIAMOC hopes that this document will contribute to improve clinical practice and help promoting further research in the field.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available