Measurement properties of observational gait analysis in patients with stroke: a systematic review.
Yugo Takeda, Aisuke Takahashi, Taishi Kitsu and 1 others
PMID 40511312WHAT IT FOUND
Four observational gait tools for stroke patients show varying reliability and validity, but most studies had methodological flaws.
Video recording protocols were inconsistent across studies, making it difficult to standardize assessments or compare results reliably in clinical practice.
Key findings
01The review identified four specific tools used for observational gait analysis in stroke: the Hemiplegic Gait Analysis form, the Rivermead Visual Gait Assessment, the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool, and the Wisconsin Gait Scale.
02Most included studies received inadequate or doubtful ratings on the COSMIN risk of bias checklist, particularly regarding reliability and responsiveness.
03There was no standardized protocol for video recording, with significant variation in camera placement, distance, and viewing conditions across the reviewed studies.
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 review only included papers written in English, which may have missed relevant studies. Many primary studies lacked detailed descriptions of rater experience and training, making it hard to judge if reliability was due to the tool or the expert raters. The search was limited to three databases, which might not have captured all available literature. Most studies had inadequate methodological quality according to COSMIN, limiting the strength of the conclusions about the tools themselves.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the identified tools as clinically validated 'gold standards' for routine practice. The review found that most studies supporting these tools had inadequate methodological quality and inconsistent video protocols, meaning current evidence is insufficient to guarantee reliable results across different clinical settings.