Journal article Open Access

Clinical relevance of standardized mobile gait tests - reliability analysis between gait recordings at hospital and home in Parkinson's disease: A pilot study

Gaßner, H.; Sanders, P.; Dietrich, A.; Marxreiter, F.; Eskofier, B.; Winkler, J.; Klucken, J.

Abstract:

Background: Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease (PD) are quantified using inertial sensors under standardized test settings in the hospital. Recent studies focused on the assessment of free-living gait in PD. However, the clinical relevance of standardized gait tests recorded at the patient’s home is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the reliability of supervised, standardized sensor-based gait outcomes at home compared to the hospital. Methods: Patients with PD (n=20) were rated by a trained investigator using the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III). Gait tests included a standardized 4x10 m walk test and the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). Tests were performed in the hospital (HOSPITAL) and at patients’ home (HOME), and controlled for investigator, time of the day, and medication. Statistics included reliability analysis using Intra-Class correlations and Bland-Altman plots. Results: UPDRS-III and TUG were comparable between HOSPITAL and HOME. PD patients’ gait at HOME was slower (gait velocity Δ=-0.07±0.11 m/s,-6.1 %), strides were shorter (stride length Δ=-9.2±9.4 cm;-7.3 %), and shuffling of gait was more present (maximum toe-clearance Δ=-0.7±2.5 cm;-8.8 %). Particularly, narrow walkways (< 85 cm) resulted in a significant reduction of gait velocity at home. Reliability analysis (HOSPITAL vs. HOME) revealed excellent ICC coefficients for UPDRS-III (0.950, p<0.000) and gait parameters (e.g. stride length: 0.898,p<0.000; gait velocity: 0.914,p<0.000; stance time: 0.922,p<0.000; stride time: 0.907,p<0.000). Conclusions: This pilot study underlined the clinical relevance of gait parameters by showing excellent reliability for supervised, standardized gait tests at HOSPITAL and HOME, even though gait parameters were different between test conditions.

This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project, that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 820820. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Content in this publication reflects the authors’ view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Files (2.3 MB)
Name Size
Gassner et al__2020__final formatted version incl suppl material__09092020.pdf
md5:90d3c1bd368d452a9faf7ed34acf0a2c
2.3 MB Download
50
34
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 5050
Downloads 3434
Data volume 77.6 MB77.6 MB
Unique views 4444
Unique downloads 3333

Share

Cite as