Gait analysis methods in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.
Marta Mirando, Alice Cleo Panara, Giacomo Rossi and 3 others
PMID 41821044WHAT IT FOUND
Gait analysis in walking people with spinal cord injury relies mostly on speed and joint angles, not forces or muscle activity.
Wearable sensors are gaining ground, but no standard protocol exists, so you cannot compare scores between clinics.
Key findings
01Spatio-temporal and kinematic measures dominate the literature, while kinetic and electromyographic measures are rarely used.
02Three-dimensional motion capture remains the most common instrumentation, though wearable inertial measurement units are being adopted.
03Heterogeneity in protocols and instrumentation prevents direct comparison of results across different studies and clinical settings.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
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
Only 10 of the 48 included studies were rated as high quality; most were fair or low. There was no consensus on instrumentation or protocols, making it difficult to combine data or compare results between studies. Many studies did not report essential details like marker placement, walkway length, or number of trials. The review excluded non-English studies and those without accessible full texts. Sample sizes in the included studies varied widely, from 3 to 153 participants.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. An AI language model was used solely to improve readability during revision.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that wearable sensors or instrumented walkways provide data that is directly interchangeable with laboratory-based 3D motion capture. The review found significant differences in how these devices measure the same parameters, and no standardised conversion or interpretation protocol currently exists for clinical use.
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 →