Citation

McMulkin ML, Macwilliams BA. Gait Posture 2015; 41(2): 608-612.

Affiliation

Motion Analysis Laboratory, Shriners Hospitals for Children, 1275 Fairfax Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: bmacwilliams@shrinenet.org.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.01.005

PMID

25623856

Abstract

Gait indices are now commonly used to assess overall pathology and outcomes from studies with instrumented gait analyses. There are differences in how these indices are calculated and therefore inherent differences in their sensitivities to detect changes or differences between groups. The purpose of the current study was to examine the three most commonly used gait indices, Gillette Gait Index (GGI), Gait Deviation Index (GDI), and Gait Profile Score (GPS), comparing the statistical sensitivity and the ability to make meaningful interpretations of the clinical results. In addition, the GDI*, a log transformed and scaled version of the GPS score which closely matches the GDI was examined. For seven previous or ongoing studies representing varying gait pathologies seen in clinical laboratories, the GGI, GDI, and GPS/GDI* were calculated retrospectively. The GDI and GPS/GDI* proved to be the most sensitive measures in assessing differences pre/post-treatment or from a control population. A power analysis revealed the GDI and GDI* to be the most sensitive statistical measures (lowest sample sizes required). Subjectively, the GDI and GDI* interpretation seemed to be the most intuitive measure for assessing clinical changes. However, the gait variable sub-scores of the GPS determined several statistical differences which were not previously noted and was the only index tool for quantifying the relative contributions of specific joints or planes of motion. The GGI did not offer any advantages over the other two indices.

Language: en