Examination of the gait evaluation index using shoes with built-in motion sensors: intra-rater reliability during comfortable walking and fastest walking.
Yoshihiro Aramaki
PMID 40895763WHAT IT FOUND
In 13 healthy young adults, sensor-embedded shoes measured gait consistently over one week during both comfortable and fastest walking.
Changes larger than the reported minimal detectable error can be considered true improvements rather than measurement noise.
Key findings
01Intra-rater reliability for stride length and stride speed was high (ICC 0.90-0.92) for both comfortable and fastest walking conditions.
02No systematic additive or proportional errors were found in the gait evaluation data.
03The study provides minimal detectable change (MDC95) values, such as 0.11 m for stride length during comfortable walking, to help distinguish true change from measurement error.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 13 healthy young adults, so the reliability and error values may not apply to older adults or patients with neurological or orthopedic conditions. Only one examiner performed all measurements, so inter-rater reliability (consistency between different therapists) is unknown. Walking was tested only on a flat, indoor surface, so results may not transfer to uneven terrain or community settings. The shoes may alter natural gait patterns compared to everyday footwear due to differences in shape and hardness.
Declared interests
The study was supported by a grant from Sendai Seiyo Gakuin College. The author declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these reliability and error values apply to your patients. The study was done on 13 healthy young adults walking indoors, and the shoes may change how people walk compared to their normal shoes.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →