Skip to main content
. 2024 Dec 30;29:633. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02162-2

Table 4.

Evaluation of gait parameters 24 h after CSFTT

Study Methods of gait assessment Functional gait tests (mean ± standard deviation; p value) Spatio-temporal parameters (mean ± standard deviation; p value) Kinematic/kinetic parameters (mean ± standard deviation; p value)
Stolze et al., 2000 [16] Treadmill

↑ Speed (23.9%), p < 0.001

↑ Stride length (20.9%) p < 0.001

↓ Single support time (8.9%), p < 0.01

↓ Double support time (16.4%), p < 0.01

↑ Swing phase time (6.9%), p < 0.05

No changes in cadence p = NS

No changes in step width, toe in/out angle p = NS

No changes ROM (hip, knee, ankle in the sagittal plane) p = NS

Schniepp et al., 2016 [17] Pressure-sensitive carpet system GAITRite

↑ Comfortable speed

Pre-post CSFTT: 0.59 ± 0.09–0.72 ± 0.11 m/s; p < 0.020

No changes in maximum speed

Pre-post CSFTT: 0.93 ± 0.20–1.00 ± 0.19 m/s p = NS

Marques et al., 2017 [18] Instrumented gait analysis

↓ Time score TUG

Pre-post CSFTT: 29.62 ± 3.33–21.96 ± 2.20 s; p < 0.01

Allali et al., 2017 [19] Optoelectronic motion system

↓ Time score TUG

Pre-post CSFTT: 28.21 ± 35.0–27.66 ± 37.84; p < 0.01

↑ Speed—Pre-post CSFTT: 0.74 ± 0.28 m/s- 0.82 ± 0.29 m/s; p < 0.001

↓ Stride time—Pre-post CSFTT: 1.25 ± 0.27–1.19 ± 0.17s; p < 0.01

No changes in step width pre-post CSFTT:

0.11 ± 0.05–0.10 ± 0.05 m; p = NA

↑ Step height pre-post CSFTT:

0.18 ± 0.05–0.19 ± 0.05 m; p < 0.001

Bovonsunthonchai et al., 2018 [20] Force distribution measurement platform

↓Time score TUG pre-post CSFTT: 15.49 ± 12.48–12.04 ± 6.58 s; p < 0.048

↓Sit to stand time pre-post CSFTT: 5.58 ± 2.99–5.06 ± 2.91 s; p < 0.046

No changes in turning time

Pre-post CSFTT: 7.53 ± 4.86 6.64 ± 3.66 s; p < 0.064

↓ Turning step (number)

Pre-post CSFTT: 8.61 ± 3.11 7.59 ± 2.39; p < 0.001

Souza et al., 2018 [21] Instrumented gait analysis

↑ Speed pre-post CSFTT:

45.3 s–35.2 s (20 m); p < 0.01

↑ Stride length; p < 0.01

↑ Cadence; p < 0.01

No changes in toe in/out angle

(p = 1.0), step width (p = 1.0)

↑ Step height (p < 0.01)

Lim et al., 2019 [22] Pressure-sensitive carpet system GAITRite

↑ Speed, pre-post CSFTT:

55.12 ± 4.81–67.84 ± 5.01 cm/s; p < 0.01

↑ Stride length, pre-post CSFTT:

62.76 ± 5.14–72.38 ± 5.11 cm; p < 0.05

↑ Cadence pre-post CSFTT:

105.33 ± 3.56–112.99 ± 3.40 steps/min; p < 0.05

↓ Stride time, pre-post CSFTT:

1.17 ± 0.04–1.09 ± 0.04 s; p < 0.05

↓Variability in stride time, pre-post CSFTT:

10.47 ± 2.27–6.05 ± 0.79%; p < 0.05

↓Variability in stride length, pre-post CSFTT: 14.35 ± 1.98–9.44 ± 0.82%; p < 0.01

No changes in single support time

Pre-post CSFTT: 67.81 ± 0.59–67.28 ± 0.93%

No changes in double support time

Pre-post CSFTT: 36.49 ± 1.34–34.81 ± 1.90%

No changes in swing phase time

Pre-post CSFTT: 32.19 ± 0.59 32.71 ± 0.93%

No changes toe in/out angle

Pre-post CSFTT: 15.28 ± 1.65–14.57 ± 1.51°

↓ Step width

Pre-post CSFTT: 13.57 ± 0.57–12.90 ± 0.60 cm; p < 0.05

Giannini et al., 2019 [23] Instrumented gait analysis

No changes in time score

TUG pre-post CSFTT: 22.28 ± 12.86–20.23 ± 8.38 s

18MWT pre-post CSFTT: 31.28 ± 14.90–28.71 ± 10.33 s

No changes in speed

TUG/18MWT pre-post CSFTT: 52.53 ± 20.24–57.17 ± 19.04 cm/s 75.84 ± 22.48–80.65 ± 22.70 cm/s

No changes in stride length

TUG, 18MWT Pre-post CSFTT: 63.89 ± 21.79–65.07 ± 19.32 cm; 88.66 ± 22.61–90.24 ± 20.55 cm

No changes in cadence

TUG/18MWT pre-post CSFTT: 48.30 ± 8.76–50.84 ± 10.49 steps/min/50.81 ± 7.97–52.13 ± 6.85 steps/min

Isik et al., 2019 [24] Instrumented gait analysis

↓ Time score TUG pre-post CSFTT:

23.3 ± 15.1–18.8 ± 9.8 s; p < 0.001

Ferrari et al., 2020 [25] Inertial sensors mGAIT No changes in time score (TUG, 18MWT) p < 0.190, p < 0.108

TUG—No changes in stride length p < 0.878,

↑ Cadence p < 0.009, ↓ Double support time p < 0.000

18MWT- ↑ Stride length p < 0.023, ↑ Cadence p < 0.000

↓ Double support time p < 0.000

Sun et al., 2020 [26] Plantar pressure-based temporal analysis (Podomed)

No changes in speed, pre-post CSFTT:

0.46 ± 0.20–0.54 ± 0.22 m/s; p < 0.310

No changes in cadence, pre-post CSFTT:

102.29 ± 14.87–103.78 ± 16.02 step/min; p < 0.690

No changes in stride time pre-post CSFTT: 1.21 ± 0.19–1.18 ± 0.19 s; p < 0.690

No changes in single support time

Pre-post CSFTT: 63.84 ± 1.40–58.66 ± 1.77%; p = 0.151

No changes in double support time

Pre-post CSFTT: 31.37 ± 3.80–30.42 ± 3.54%; p = 0.310

Griffa et al., 2020 [27] Optoelectronic motion system

↑ Speed, pre-post CSFTT:

0.71 ± 0.26–0.79 ± 0.31 m/s; p < 0.013

↑ Step length, pre-post CSFTT:

0.87 ± 0.26–0.91 ± 0.30 m; p < 0.007

↑ Stride time, pre-post CSFTT:

1.25 ± 0.18–1.19 ± 0.18 m; p < 0.042

No changes in step width

Pre-post CSFTT: 0.10 ± 0.03–0.11 ± 0.04 m; p = 0.44

Morel et al., 2021 [28] Optoelectronic motion system (Vicon Mx3 +) ↑ Speed in frontal gait, pre-post CSFTT–delta: 0.51 ± 0.21—0.31 ± 0.31 m/s; p < 0.001
Chunyan et al., 2021 [29] Instrumented gait analysis

↓Time score TUG

Pre-post CSFTT: 21.9 ± 7.1–17.6 ± 5.1 s; p < 0.001

No changes time score 10MWT

Pre-post CSFTT: 17.7 ± 7.7–17.2 ± 18.1 s; p: 0.829

↑ Speed, pre-post CSFTT:

0.7 ± 0.2–0.8 ± 0.3 m/s; p < 0.001

↑ Stride length, pre-post CSFTT:

0.4 ± 0.1–0.46 ± 0.1 m/step; p < 0.001

No changes in cadence, pre-post CSFTT:

1.8 ± 0.3–1.7 ± 0.4 step/s; p = 0.441

Matsuoka et al., 2022 [30] Instrumented gait analysis

↓ Time score (TUG)

Pre-post CSFTT: 25.5 ± 17.5–18.4 ± 13.6 s; p < 0.000

↓ Time score (10 MWT comf./max.)

Pre-post CSFTT: 22.4 ± 12.9–15.8 ± 8.7/20.6 ± 15.7–14.2 ± 9.1 s;

p < 0.001/p < 0.003

↓ Step count (10 MWT comf./max.)

Pre-post CSFTT: 35.3 ± 17.1–27.5 ± 11.9/35.6 ± 23.8–26.1 ± 15.1;

p < 0.001/p < 0.003