other:ior_gait:ior_gait_overview
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| other:ior_gait:ior_gait_overview [2026/04/24 17:59] – [IOR Tutorials] wikisysop | other:ior_gait:ior_gait_overview [2026/04/24 19:34] (current) – [IOR Tutorials] wikisysop | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| - [[# | - [[# | ||
| - | |||
| - | \\ | ||
| The IOR protocols have been validated clinically with links to the various publications in the next section. | The IOR protocols have been validated clinically with links to the various publications in the next section. | ||
| - | |||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 33: | Line 30: | ||
| ==== IORfoot ==== | ==== IORfoot ==== | ||
| - | |{{: | + | |{{: |
| For more information about other multi-segment feet, here are summaries of other [[Visual3D: | For more information about other multi-segment feet, here are summaries of other [[Visual3D: | ||
| Line 52: | Line 49: | ||
| The IOR Marker Set and associated models are described and implemented in several tutorials as detailed below: | The IOR Marker Set and associated models are described and implemented in several tutorials as detailed below: | ||
| ^Tutorial^Description^ | ^Tutorial^Description^ | ||
| - | |[[visual3d: | + | |[[visual3d: |
| - | |[[visual3d: | + | |[[visual3d: |
| - | |[[: | + | |[[: |
| + | |[[visual3d: | ||
| + | |[[visual3d: | ||
| + | |[[visual3d: | ||
| + | |[[visual3d: | ||
| + | |[[other: | ||
| + | |[[other: | ||
| + | |[[other: | ||
| ===== Repeatability ===== | ===== Repeatability ===== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 67: | ||
| |**Arnold JB, Mackintosh S, Jones S, Thewlis D. (2013)** " | |**Arnold JB, Mackintosh S, Jones S, Thewlis D. (2013)** " | ||
| - | |//[[[http:// | + | |// |
| |Confidence in 3D multi-segment foot models has been limited by a lack of repeatability data, particularly in older populations that may display unique functional foot characteristics. This study aimed to determine the intra and inter-observer repeatability of stance phase kinematic data from a multi-segment foot model described by Leardini et al. [2] in people aged 50 years or older. Twenty healthy adults participated (mean age 65.4 years SD 8.4). A repeated measures study design was used with data collected from four testing sessions on two days from two observers. Intra (within-day and between-day) and inter-observer coefficient of multiple correlations revealed moderate to excellent similarity of stance phase joint range of motion (0.621-0.975). Relative to the joint range of motion (ROM), mean differences (MD) between sessions were highest for the within-day comparison for all planar ROM at the metatarsus-midfoot articulation (sagittal plane ROM 5.2° vs. 3.9°, MD 3.1°; coronal plane ROM 3.9 vs. 3.1°, MD 2.3°; transverse plane ROM 6.8° vs. 5.16°, MD 3.5°). Consequently, | |Confidence in 3D multi-segment foot models has been limited by a lack of repeatability data, particularly in older populations that may display unique functional foot characteristics. This study aimed to determine the intra and inter-observer repeatability of stance phase kinematic data from a multi-segment foot model described by Leardini et al. [2] in people aged 50 years or older. Twenty healthy adults participated (mean age 65.4 years SD 8.4). A repeated measures study design was used with data collected from four testing sessions on two days from two observers. Intra (within-day and between-day) and inter-observer coefficient of multiple correlations revealed moderate to excellent similarity of stance phase joint range of motion (0.621-0.975). Relative to the joint range of motion (ROM), mean differences (MD) between sessions were highest for the within-day comparison for all planar ROM at the metatarsus-midfoot articulation (sagittal plane ROM 5.2° vs. 3.9°, MD 3.1°; coronal plane ROM 3.9 vs. 3.1°, MD 2.3°; transverse plane ROM 6.8° vs. 5.16°, MD 3.5°). Consequently, | ||
| Line 70: | Line 74: | ||
| |**Deschamps K, Staes F, Bruyninckx H, Busschots E, Jaspers E, Atre A, Desloovere K.(2012)** " | |**Deschamps K, Staes F, Bruyninckx H, Busschots E, Jaspers E, Atre A, Desloovere K.(2012)** " | ||
| - | |//[[[http:// | + | |// |
| |A recently published systematic review on 3D multi-segment foot models has illustrated the lack of repeatability studies providing evidence for appropriate clinical decision making. The aim of the current study was to assess the repeatability of the recently published model developed by Leardini et al. [10]. Foot kinematics of six healthy adults were analyzed through a repeated-measures design including two therapists with different levels of experience and four test sessions. For the majority of the parameters moderate or good repeatability was observed for the within-day and between-day sessions. A trend towards consistently higher within- and between-day variability was observed for the junior compared to the senior clinician. The mean inter-session variability of the relative 3D rotations ranged between 0.9-4.2° and 1.6-5.0° for respectively the senior and junior clinician whereas for the absolute angles this variability increased to respectively 2.0-6.2° and 2.6-7.8°. Mean inter-therapist standard deviations ranged between 2.2° and 6.5° for the relative 3D rotations and between 2.8° and 7.6° for the absolute 3D rotations. The ratio of inter-therapist to inter-trial errors ranged between 1.8 and 5.5 for the relative 3D rotations and between 2.4 and 9.7 for the absolute 3D rotations. Absolute angle representation of the planar angles was found to be more difficult. Observations from the current study indicate that an adequate normative database can be installed in gait laboratories, | |A recently published systematic review on 3D multi-segment foot models has illustrated the lack of repeatability studies providing evidence for appropriate clinical decision making. The aim of the current study was to assess the repeatability of the recently published model developed by Leardini et al. [10]. Foot kinematics of six healthy adults were analyzed through a repeated-measures design including two therapists with different levels of experience and four test sessions. For the majority of the parameters moderate or good repeatability was observed for the within-day and between-day sessions. A trend towards consistently higher within- and between-day variability was observed for the junior compared to the senior clinician. The mean inter-session variability of the relative 3D rotations ranged between 0.9-4.2° and 1.6-5.0° for respectively the senior and junior clinician whereas for the absolute angles this variability increased to respectively 2.0-6.2° and 2.6-7.8°. Mean inter-therapist standard deviations ranged between 2.2° and 6.5° for the relative 3D rotations and between 2.8° and 7.6° for the absolute 3D rotations. The ratio of inter-therapist to inter-trial errors ranged between 1.8 and 5.5 for the relative 3D rotations and between 2.4 and 9.7 for the absolute 3D rotations. Absolute angle representation of the planar angles was found to be more difficult. Observations from the current study indicate that an adequate normative database can be installed in gait laboratories, | ||
| Line 76: | Line 80: | ||
| - | |**Caravaggi P, Benedetti MG, Berti L, Leardini A. (2011)**\\ \\ " | + | |**Caravaggi P, Benedetti MG, Berti L, Leardini A. (2011)** " |
| + | |//[[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ | ||
| + | |Despite the numerous protocols for multi-segment kinematic analysis of the foot, the literature is scarce regarding relevant measures of reliability. The aim of the present work was to assess the inter-trial, | ||
other/ior_gait/ior_gait_overview.1777053546.txt.gz · Last modified: by wikisysop
