4.6 Article

Further Validation of Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 Scores Based on Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 94, Issue 3, Pages 575-578

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.214

Keywords

Outcomes assessment; Rehabilitation; Walking

Funding

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [PP1685]
  2. Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers
  3. Du Pre grant from the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the association between Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12) scores and spatiotemporal parameters of gait as indicators of gait quality among ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: Community-residing persons with MS (N=268). Intervention: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Main outcome measures included the MSWS-12 and spatial and temporal gait parameters (walking speed, cadence, step length, step time, base of support [ie, the distance between 1 footfall and the line of progression of the opposing foot], and percentage of gait cycle spent in double support). Secondary outcomes included the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), 6-minute walk (6MW), and Patient-Determined Disease Steps scale. Results: MSWS-12 scores were significantly correlated with walking speed (r=-.59), cadence (r=-.50), step length (r=-.53), step time (r=.46), base of support (r=.29), and percentage of the gait cycle spent in double support (r=.54). MSWS-12 scores further were significantly correlated with T25FW (r=.57) and 6MW (r=-.75) scores. Conclusions: Such findings suggest that the MSWS-12 captures aspects of walking quality, assessed as spatiotemporal parameters of gait, in addition to walking speed and endurance in persons with MS. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2013;94:575-8 (C) 2013 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

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