4.6 Review

Tools for Observational Gait Analysis in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review

期刊

PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 93, 期 12, 页码 1673-1685

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20120344

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Stroke severely affects walking ability, and assessment of gait kinematics is important in defining diagnosis, planning treatment, and evaluating interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Although observational gait analysis is the most common approach to evaluate gait kinematics, tools useful for this purpose have received little attention in the scientific literature and have not been thoroughly reviewed. Objectives. The aims of this systematic review were to identify tools proposed to conduct observational gait analysis in adults with a stroke, to summarize evidence concerning their quality, and to assess their implementation in rehabilitation research and clinical practice. Methods. An extensive search was performed of original articles reporting on visual/observational tools developed to investigate gait kinematics in adults with a stroke. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed quality of the included studies, and scored the metric properties and clinical utility of each tool. Rigor in reporting metric properties and dissemination of the tools also was evaluated. Results. Five tools were identified, not all of which had been tested adequately for their metric properties. Evaluation of content validity was partially satisfactory. Reliability was poorly investigated in all but one tool. Concurrent validity and sensitivity to change were shown for 3 and 2 tools, respectively. Overall, adequate levels of quality were rarely reached. The dissemination of the tools was poor. Conclusions. Based on critical appraisal, the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool shows a good level of quality, and its use in stroke rehabilitation is recommended. Rigorous studies are needed for the other tools in order to establish their usefulness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据