IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0265883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GaitSmart motion analysis compared to commonly used function outcome measures in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Eefje M van Helvoort
  • D Hodgins
  • Simon C Mastbergen
  • Anne C A Marijnissen
  • M Kloppenburg
  • Fransisco J Blanco
  • Ida K Haugen
  • F Berenbaum
  • Floris P J G Lafeber
  • Paco M J Welsing

Abstract

Background: There are multiple measures for assessment of physical function in knee osteoarthritis (OA), but each has its strengths and limitations. The GaitSmart® system, which uses inertial measurement units (IMUs), might be a user-friendly and objective method to assess function. This study evaluates the validity and responsiveness of GaitSmart® motion analysis as a function measurement in knee OA and compares this to Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), 30s chair stand test, and 40m self-paced walk test. Methods: The 2-year Innovative Medicines Initiative—Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (IMI-APPROACH) knee OA cohort was conducted between January 2018 and April 2021. For this study, available baseline and 6 months follow-up data (n = 262) was used. Principal component analysis was used to investigate whether above mentioned function instruments could represent one or more function domains. Subsequently, linear regression was used to explore the association between GaitSmart® parameters and those function domains. In addition, standardized response means, effect sizes and t-tests were calculated to evaluate the ability of GaitSmart® to differentiate between good and poor general health (based on SF-36). Lastly, the responsiveness of GaitSmart® to detect changes in function was determined. Results: KOOS, SF-36, 30s chair test and 40m self-paced walk test were first combined into one function domain (total function). Thereafter, two function domains were substracted related to either performance based (objective function) or self-reported (subjective function) function. Linear regression resulted in the highest R2 for the total function domain: 0.314 (R2 for objective and subjective function were 0.252 and 0.142, respectively.). Furthermore, GaitSmart® was able to distinguish a difference in general health status, and is responsive to changes in the different aspects of objective function (Standardized response mean (SRMs) up to 0.74). Conclusion: GaitSmart® analysis can reflect performance based and self-reported function and may be of value in the evaluation of function in knee OA. Future studies are warranted to validate whether GaitSmart® can be used as clinical outcome measure in OA research and clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Eefje M van Helvoort & D Hodgins & Simon C Mastbergen & Anne C A Marijnissen & M Kloppenburg & Fransisco J Blanco & Ida K Haugen & F Berenbaum & Floris P J G Lafeber & Paco M J Welsing, 2022. "GaitSmart motion analysis compared to commonly used function outcome measures in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265883
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265883
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265883&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0265883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.