PTOtherArchives of physiotherapy2019

The validity of spatiotemporal gait analysis using dual laser range sensors: a cross-sectional study.

Masanobu Iwai, Soichiro Koyama, Shigeo Tanabe and 6 others

PMID 30820352

WHAT IT FOUND

In 10 healthy adults, a dual laser gait system did not agree well enough with a standard walkway to be trusted for most timing measures.

Stride time and stride length were closest; swing and double support times were poor.

Key findings

01Stride time and stride length met the study's good-agreement threshold, while stance time and step length did not.

02Swing time and double support time did not reach the study's good-agreement threshold.

03The study tested only healthy young adults, and the authors say patients with gait disorders and elderly people still need to be measured.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 10 healthy participants aged 20 to 24 years were tested, so the findings do not show performance in patients with gait disorders or older adults. The study assessed only concurrent validity against one walkway system; it did not test reliability over repeated sessions or compare the dual laser setup with a single laser sensor. The measurement path was limited to 5 m, and the laser sampling frequency was low, which restricts longer-range use and activities such as running. Agreement was below the good-agreement threshold for stance time, double support time, swing time, and step length, with swing time the poorest. The authors state the ICC values for all spatiotemporal parameters were not high enough, ranging from 0.23 to 0.89.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the good stride time and stride length results as proof that the dual laser system is ready for clinical gait timing. Swing time and double support time agreement was poor, and the authors concluded the method lacked sufficient concurrent validity.

Read it on PubMed →