Table 1
Characteristics of the study participants
| Number of participants | 30 (21 F/9 M) |
|---|---|
| Group (mean value ± SD) | |
| Age (years) | 69.67 ± 4.33 |
| Height (m) | 1.65 ± 0.05 |
| Body mass (kg) | 76.3 ± 10.6 |
Table 2
Comparison of spatiotemporal parameters and the percentage contribution of walk phases, as well as their changes, in the TUG test and the walk test
| Walk | TUG | Percentage change | p-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean value | Std | Mean value | Std | Mean value | Std | ||
| Cadence (steps/min) | 113.14 | 8.38 | 117.65 | 7.95 | 4.19% | 5.62% | <0.005* |
| Walk stride time (s) | 1.07 | 0.08 | 1.02 | 0.07 | −4.16% | 4.75% | <0.005* |
| Walk stance left (%) | 60.9 | 1.64 | 60.72 | 2.39 | −0.28% | 3.12% | 0.619 |
| Walk stance right (%) | 61.07 | 1.6 | 60.86 | 2.24 | −0.35% | 2.72% | 0.4849 |
| Walk swing left (%) | 39.1 | 1.64 | 39.28 | 2.39 | 0.48% | 4.99% | 0.619 |
| Walk swing right (%) | 38.93 | 1.6 | 39.14 | 2.24 | 0.57% | 4.21% | 0.4849 |
| Walk single walk support left (%) | 39.26 | 1.48 | 38.92 | 2.74 | −0.83% | 6.18% | 0.46 |
| Walk single support right (%) | 39.63 | 1.67 | 38.98 | 2.7 | −1.61% | 5.83% | 0.145 |
| Walk velocity (km/h) | 4.21 | 0.64 | 4.76 | 0.9 | 14.07% | 18.97% | <0.005* |
Note: avg - average, std- standard deviation, * p < 0.05.
Figure 1
Relationship between cadence and walk velocity during the Up and Go test and self-selected walking.
Figure 2
Relationship between stride time and walk velocity during the Up and Go test and self-selected walking.
Figure 3
(a) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters cadence (steps/min), (b) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters stride time (s), (c) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk stance left (%), (d) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk stance right (%), (e) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk swing left (%), (f) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk swing right (%), (g) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk single support left (%), (h) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters walk single sSupport right (%), and (i) Bland–Altman plots for agreement analysis between parameters velocity (km/h).
Figure 4
Mean kinematic waveforms of lower-limb joint flexion and pelvic tilt in the sagittal plane for the walk cycle during the TUG test and the walk test. The rectangular shaded area at the bottom of the plot represents the result of the test for SPM statistical differences.
Table 3
ROM during walk recorded in the walk test and the TUG test
| Joint | Test | Min | Max | ROM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pelvis tilt (°) | Walk | −5.27 ± 1.4 | 5.45 ± 1.37 | 10.72 ± 2.75 |
| TUG | −5.65 ± 2.16 | 5.43 ± 1.62 | 11.08 ± 3.64 | |
| Hip flexion (°) | Walk | −18.41 ± 5.19 | 25.65 ± 4.85 | 44.06 ± 2.77 |
| TUG | −13.56 ± 12.1 | 33.31 ± 11.51 | 46.87 ± 7.52 | |
| Knee flexion (°) | Walk | 1.12 ± 4.35 | 55.63 ± 8.74 | 54.51 ± 7.42 |
| TUG | 5.75 ± 6.09 | 59.99 ± 7.32 | 54.24 ± 5.74 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion (°) | Walk | −10.65 ± 4.59 | 13.04 ± 2.88 | 23.69 ± 4.52 |
| TUG | −10.13 ± 4.9 | 14.42 ± 3.33 | 24.54 ± 4.25 |