4.2 Article

Responsiveness of gait analysis parameters in a cohort of 71 CMT subjects

期刊

NEUROMUSCULAR DISORDERS
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1029-1037

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2017.07.003

关键词

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; Outcome measures; Responsiveness; Gait analysis; Clinical trials

资金

  1. Telethon-Italy [GUP10010]
  2. Italian Ministry of Health Fondi Ricerca Corrente IRCCS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection of worsening in the slowly progressive Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is difficult. As previous clinical scales showed low responsiveness, novel outcome measure's are under study, including innovative approaches such as quantitative muscle MRI and instrumented movement analysis. Since gait analysis proved able to reliably quantify CMT locomotor deficits, we aimed to explore whether it can be a sensitive-to-change outcome measure in CMT studies. Clinical and biomechanical evaluations were performed in 71 CMT subjects at baseline and after a mean (+/- sd) of 28.9 +/- 9.5 months. Locomotor tasks included natural walking, ascending and descending steps. Instrumented analysis of such tasks provided indexes related to muscle strength (kinetic parameters) and joint movement (kinematic parameters). Parameter responsiveness was expressed as Standardized Response Mean (SRM). Considering the whole CMT group, several parameters showed moderate responsiveness; subgrouping subjects according to disease severity allowed reaching high responsiveness (SRM >0.80). CMT Examination Score showed moderate responsiveness (SRM 0.53) in the minimally affected group; kinematic parameters were more responsive in this group, whereas kinetic parameters in the most severely affected one. Biomechanical parameters can represent suitable outcome measures for CMT by showing moderate-to-high responsiveness. These data suggest that appropriate selection of patient population and outcome measures is crucial for clinical trials' design. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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