Q J Med 2004; 97: 463-475
QJM vol. 97 no. 8 © Association of Physicians 2004; all rights reserved.
Review |
Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders
From the Department of Medicine (Section of Neurology and Ophthalmology), and 1Research Centre for Clinical Kinaesiology, Department of Physiotherapy Education, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Current practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
Difficulty in walking is a major feature of neurological disease, and loss of mobility is the activity of daily living on which patients place the most value.1 Consequently, how to measure and assess this is of importance to any member of the inter-disciplinary team. In clinical practice, the World Health Organization international classification of functioning (ICF)2 is often adopted as the underlying framework for the assessment of mobility, which is an individual's ability to move about effectively in their environment.2 The ICF also introduces the constructs of performance (what an individual does in his environment) and capacity (ability to execute a task or action). This has a clear impact on the current methodology for the assessment of mobility.
Different pathologies and impairments culminate in abnormal or reduced walking. For instance, in multiple sclerosis (MS), impairments such as weakness and spasticity from pyramidal tract lesions, loss of proprioception and co-ordination from dorsal column and cerebellar lesions, vestibular and visual dysfunction, cognitive and mood disturbance and pain may all contribute (Figure 1). In primary muscle disease, mobility is determined by weakness but secondary factors such as weight gain, contractures, fatigue and breathlessness may have important impacts. The degree of impairment has a non-linear relationship with activity and participation. For example leg strength and walking speed are poorly correlated,3 while many personal and environmental factors may influence the impact of similar degrees of loss of walking on mobility.
|
Impaired walking can be a marker of both disability and disease progression, and is therefore an important outcome measure in the treatment and rehabilitation of diseases such as MS and Parkinson's disease (PD). In some cases, measurement of mobility may have a direct influence on access to treatment. For example in MS, eligibility for disease-modifying drugs is in part determined by the maximum walking distance.4
|
Current practice in mobility measurement |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
Clinicians regularly observe gait for diagnostic purposes and commonly form opinions, often aided by the impression of the patient and/or carer, as to whether walking is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ in the context of progression of disease or response (or lack of it) to treatment. In the context of monitoring, it is clearly preferable to measure walking objectively.
As yet, there is no ‘gold standard’ assessment that provides a direct measure of mobility in a community setting,5 i.e. performance. Current assessment of mobility (Table 1) usually involves subjective or observer-rated instruments that range from direct clinical observation to asking the patient, sometimes aided by questionnaires or diaries. Most indices provide a measure related to a specific point in time and a particular setting, and are characterized by brevity, a non-familiar environment, the need for direct observation, dependence on exact instructions, and an unquantifiable impact of the observer, which is likely to vary depending on the aim of the evaluation (e.g. assessment for social security payment vs. interferon prescription). Such measures may provide an index of what an individual can do (capacity) or believes they can do (in terms of walking), but the extent to which they indicate actual performance in the home environment is speculative.
|
Clinical practice increasingly demands that interventions have robust outcome data and clear benefits. Many current measurement tools used in practice have limitations6 (see Table 2). We review some current methods of assessing mobility in terms of reliability, validity, responsiveness (identifies change that is significant to patient and clinician) and whether they can inform objectively on performance.
|
|
Quantitative or timed analysis |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
Timing of walking
Walking may be timed over a fixed distance or expressed as a speed (m/s). Timed walks of 10 m/25 ft have been used as an outcome measure in a variety of neurological conditions, including stroke and head injury,7–9 form part of a recommended outcome measure for clinical trials in multiple sclerosis,10 and have been recommended by expert opinion.11 Among the advantages of gait speed is that it is simple, quick and inexpensive, has established face validity, and is relatively independent of distance: it is expressed as a continuous/ratio measure, allowing data to be expressed in relation to a normal range, and the degree of deviation can clearly be seen. However there is variability in methodology, for instance instructions given (‘own speed’ or ‘fast as possible‘), the environment of the test, and whether to include starting, stopping or a turn,8 all of which may affect reliability. Furthermore, a ceiling effect is apparent at normal walking speed (1.2–1.4 m/s).12 While reliability within tests is good, between tests this decreases13 and there is variability of up to 20% for three repeated measures:14 thus some investigators have suggested that a change >20% is most likely to represent reliable change.15
While a timed walk is simple to undertake, relatively reliable, responsive, and allows an indication of capacity, it remains nevertheless a ‘performance’, the validity of which as an index of mobility within the individual's usual environment remains uncertain.
Endurance tests (2 or 6 min)16
The 2- or 6-min walk test is used to measure the maximum distance that a person can walk over that time interval, and is commonly used in the assessment of cardiovascular or pulmonary disease. It has been used to assess outcome and mobility in individuals with stroke, head injury17 and Parkinson's disease18 and has been found to be reliable.17 While including an endurance component, other factors such as pain, mood and cardiovascular fitness can influence the outcome.19 There is little information on the clinical relevance of this test as a predictor of community function in neurological disorders.
Quantitative movement analysis
The use of specific movement analysis techniques (both laboratory- and community-based) may provide more detailed quantification of walking. Sophisticated laboratory assessment can provide objective computerized analysis, giving accurate details of temporal measures, kinematics (limb motion assessed by the use of motion analysis systems and markers across joints), electromyography and kinetics (forces exerted by body using in-ground force plate transducers). This may inform our understanding of the components of impaired walking in an individual, but is expensive in terms of time and finance, unsuitable for large group studies, and is of uncertain relation to community mobility. Developments in digital video technology may allow home-based assessments.20 Video-observed scoring systems21 have also been used to assess the quality of gait and used as outcome measures, for example in a trial of physiotherapy in MS,22,23 which facilitates evaluation of inter-rater reliability for a range of scoring systems.23 As with gait speed, gait analysis provides objective data on capacity, but the link to mobility in the community is unclear.
Energy expenditure
The measurement of energy cost during walking has been used as a measure of the efficiency of walking activity. The methods are either direct or indirect calorific assessments. Direct assessment takes place in specialized chambers that allow analysis of everyday tasks; clearly not appropriate for own-environment assessment. Indirect methods may use the consumption of oxygen, heart rate monitoring or metabolism of isotope labelled water.24–26 While these methods have been used to assess the benefit of orthotics or surgery to improve gait in cerebral palsy24 and are of interest in epidemiological studies, they have many drawbacks, including financial cost, feasibility and interference with activity, and may be influenced by physical fitness and non-ambulatory exertion. As such, they are not practical as measures of real-life mobility.
|
Functional scales |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
The lack of a ‘gold standard’ for measuring the impact of disease on mobility has led to a proliferation of functional scales, some of which are considered below. The majority are ordinal, i.e. represent an order in which one value is better or worse than another, although the interval between values is not equal (interval scale). This type of scale uses data either from observed activity (and thus has the same limitations in principle as a timed walk) or from patient or carer questionnaires: the latter may provide accurate qualitative information about mobility but has severe quantitative limitations. Use of aids, e.g. a stick may define scores over and above absolute mobility, e.g. the Kurtzke expanded disability scale (EDSS). Whether new psychometric methods such as Rasch analysis or item response theory as statistical techniques to convert ordinal scales into interval measures will make such scales more useful and rigorous outcome measures, needs to be determined.27
Specific mobility scales
Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI)28
The RMI is an ordinal scale based on asked questions about mobility derived disability and an observation of standing. It has good psychometric properties (Table 3), and is more sensitive to change than the ambulation index and gait speed in MS.14 It has been used as an outcome measure in many studies and RCTs, including physiotherapy in MS.22 The relation to real-life mobility is unknown.
|
Ambulation Index (AI)9
This semi-quantitative ordinal scale is scored 0–10, based on ambulation-related disability, use of an aid and the time taken to walk 25 ft. It was originally designed for use in immunosuppression treatment trials in MS. It has moderate inter-rater agreement, and is weakly responsive.29 It is again influenced by the use of an aid, which can be dependant on psychosocial factors such as vanity and fear of falling, rather than actual performed mobility.30
Impairment/disability scales
Kurtzke Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS)31
The EDSS is designed as an observed examination scored on an ordinal scale, and was the first to be widely adopted as an outcome measure in multiple sclerosis. While an advance when first proposed, and still widely used, its flaws are now well-known. These include the fact that it measures impairment at its lower end and disability at the upper, with the middle entirely dependent upon mobility. It has rather low sensitivity,32 and can have poor intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.33 This may be because maximum walking distance can vary day to day,34 some assessors may ask for maximum walking distance rather than observe it (or give variable instructions) and some clinicians and patients are inaccurate at estimating distance.35,36
UK (Guy's) Neurological Disability Scale (UKNDS)37
The UKNDS was developed as a patient-oriented, questionnaire-based measure of disability in MS, with a mobility component, that has satisfactory psychometric properties and appears reliable and responsive with good validity.38 Walking is considered ‘not affected’ or affected but independent (no assistance) for scores of 0 and 1, respectively, while scores 2–5 represent increasing degrees of support (aids, person, wheelchair). Such a scale probably provides useful information, but gives virtually no indication about the amount of walking undertaken with the possible exception of grade 5 (‘restricted to wheelchair‘). As with the EDSS and AI, the mobility section is dominated by the use of aids or assistance, without being able to clarify amount of walking.
Global ability and participation measures
Activities of daily living questionnaires (e.g. Barthel Index) and measures of quality of life (e.g. SF-36) have mobility subsections. These are directed toward functional abilities and dependency and are therefore limited as direct outcome measures of mobility.
Patient-oriented measures
There has been increasing interest in health status and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), which have been defined as patient-oriented outcomes as opposed to objective measures (physician-oriented). These measures incorporate to varying degrees the patient's viewpoint, and have been described as the ‘optimum outcome measure’.39 An example of such a patient-oriented measure is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29).40 This is a patient-based outcome measure consisting of 29 questions, each scored out of 5. It was developed using psychometric methods and it has high test/re-test reliability. Validity and responsiveness has been demonstrated in a number of MS populations.40,41 Another promising new patient self-report scale is the MS walking scale (MSWS-12).42 Developed using psychometric principles, it consists of 12 items, each scored out of 5. The authors report excellent reliability and validity, but it has yet to be independently assessed.
Questionnaire-based scales may give a better idea of perceived performance rather than capacity, but are limited by their indirect and non-verifiable nature.11 Ordinal scales are poorly responsive, as a threshold must be crossed before change is recorded. Perception and recall, in a population where cognitive impairment and affective disorder is common, may be further limitations (e.g. impaired autobiographical memory is present in up to 60% in some MS populations, and is associated with impaired ability to make comparative judgements43). The patient's perception of their own mobility and in particular, of change in mobility clearly changes over time. Initially, at the onset of a disorder, large changes in absolute mobility dominate perceptions, e.g. the difference between walking only half a mile versus a 10-mile hike. Later, and with increased disability, the difference between being able to cross a room or not assumes major relevance, whereas a 10-mile hike is a remote memory. Such disjunctions between patient perception and absolute levels of mobility are of major importance, and emphasize the need to combine relative and absolute measures of outcome.
Because of a lack of a gold standard for assessing mobility, validating such questionnaire-based outcome measures is performed using construct validity (comparison with current scales used) rather than criterion validity.6 Although these measures allow some representation of a patient's walking capacity, they remain surrogate markers of absolute mobility in the community.
|
Physical activity questionnaires |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
These questionnaires were initially used to study the epidemiology of physical activity,44,45 and rely on either diary or recall, and subsequent conversion of activity into energy expenditure. Questionnaires are easy to use and inexpensive, but are retrospective and rely on a recall, perception and estimation of physical activity, which may be more or less than actual activity.46 Diaries require a high level of adherence, and may interfere with or influence physical activity (Hawthorne effect).47 When physical activity questionnaires are compared to activity monitoring, they underestimate distance walked/energy expenditure,46 and are less sensitive to differences between inactive populations (MS and sedentary volunteers).48
|
Ambulatory activity monitors |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
The use of motion sensors, such as pedometers, has been advocated for comprehensive quantification of mobility.49 Through computerization, activity can be measured over many days unobtrusively and without interfering excessively with normal pattern of life. Such direct measurement methods in principle provide more precise information regarding what an individual actually does in everyday life and, potentially, how this changes over time.
Accelerometers
Accelerometers provide information on frequency and intensity of movement over continuous time intervals,50 and have been used in multiple sclerosis.48 Three-dimensional accelerometers may have limitations in accuracy and reliability.51 Most commercially available accelerometers are worn at the waist, and are sensitive to vertical movement. The position, mode of attachment, the movement style and walking speed of the individual being monitored will therefore affect the response. The accuracy of a waist-attached pedometer was compared to that of a two-dimensional accelerometer worn at the ankle, and the latter had less error, particularly in obese subjects and those with gait asymmetry.52
Microprocessor-based 2D accelerometers (e.g. the Step Activity Monitor, SAM) were developed to overcome limitations of waist-attached devices.51,52 The SAM, for example, is worn at the ankle and measures cadence (right steps per minute) on a minute-by-minute basis, allowing recording of activity for up to 21 days in an unobtrusive manner. Other advantages include that is easily worn, allowing the elderly and the increasingly disabled to be assessed, and can be programmed according to a subject's height, cadence and gait speed. A range of data outputs are possible, including total number of steps/day or week, the average 24 h step count over a week, sustained activity measures (e.g. maximum number of steps achieved during any continuous interval e.g. 1, 10, 60 min), peak activity indices (highest mean step rate during any 30 x 1 min intervals) and percentage of time spent in inactivity (no steps/min). The sustained activity measure gives an estimate of endurance while the peak indices give an estimate of best performance. If the total step count/ 24 h is combined with a measure of stride length, an estimate of total distance walked can be made.
Such devices have been used successfully in populations with notable gait asymmetry, particularly amputee subjects and individuals following a stroke.53 The accuracy and reliability of the SAM in stroke patients has been investigated, and found to offer good potential to quantify home- or community-based activity levels.53,54 The monitor was found to be reliable in MS, PD and neuromuscular disease,55,56 and reference ranges are quoted in Table 4. However, this method is dependent on patient adherence (wearing the monitor). It is limited to walking mobility, and cannot assess mobility associated with wheelchair use or other transport. The use of such a device can be supplemented by a debriefing session at the conclusion of monitoring. Step counts or distances/time generate interval or ratio measures over sufficiently long periods of everyday life to have strong face validity as measures of mobility in the community. Observation of neurological patients recovering from clinical events shows much greater changes recorded using step counts, compared to conventional mobility scores; such difference can approach an order of magnitude (Figure 2).
|
|
|
A new gold standard |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
In principle, the gold standard for walking activity should measure performance, the total ambulation over a representative period of time. As activity varies markedly during the day and may vary cyclically over longer periods, e.g. a week, the sample length needs to be long enough to be representative, but not so long as to be impractical. Total ambulation could be measured in terms of distance walked, and/or paces taken in a given period. While estimates of distance walked could be made by using mean stride length, the fact that this varies with speed is an issue. Accurate distance walked may require new technologies, such as advanced global positioning systems.
The ideal measure of walking activity would also be reliable, accurate in measuring mobility (valid), clinically practical and economical. Furthermore, it should generate interval or ratio scale data for increased sensitivity, and comparison with a normal range. Unfortunately none of the measures discussed above can meet this standard; the strengths of some are the weakness of others. Most measures are either attempting to derive mobility from brief observations, or assessing what level of mobility is perceived, rather than assessing what individuals actually do in real life.
Continuous long-term home monitoring using accelerometry is the technique that currently allows many of the above aims to be achieved. Many questions remain to be answered regarding activity monitoring, including the most appropriate period of monitoring that reflects the individual's activity (7 days has been suggested),57 and the optimum measure (e.g. 24 h step count, maximum cadence achieved, duration of inactivity, total distance walked). In particular, the relationships between such outputs and measures of activity, participation and quality of life, require exploration.
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
We propose that the gold standard for measuring ambulatory mobility in neurological disorders should be the total ambulatory activity undertaken by an individual in their usual environment in performing their usual range of daily activities.
Ambulatory activity monitoring allows such activity to be expressed as steps and distance over time, placed into context by patient self-report of usual events. Adoption of such a standard will necessitate a review of the validity of measures that only sample (by observation or questioning) brief periods of activity in an artificial environment (capacity), and of the relationship between mobility, participation and quality of life.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
ORP is supported by Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust; MEB is supported by the Wales Office for Research and Development (DTA 00_2_008). The authors would like to acknowledge Kim Coleman of Cymatech Step Watch, makers of the Step Activity Monitor (SAM), and staff in the Department of Neurology, University Hospital Wales and the Research Centre for Clinical Kinaesiology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Address correspondence to Dr O.R. Pearson, Section of Neurology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XN. e-mail: pearsonor{at}cardiff.ac.uk
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionCurrent practice in mobility...Quantitative or timed analysisFunctional scalesPhysical activity questionnairesAmbulatory activity monitorsA new gold standardConclusionReferences |
|---|
1. Chiou, II, Burnett CN. Values of activities of daily living. A survey of stroke patients and their home therapists. Phys Ther 1985; 65:901–6.
2. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001.
3. Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Buchner D, Kasper J, Lamb SE, Simonsick EM, et al. Departures from linearity in the relationship between measures of muscular strength and physical performance of the lower extremities: the Women's Health and Aging Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1997; 52:M275–85.[Abstract]
4. ABN. Guidelines for the use of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis. Association of British Neurologists, January 2001.
5. Bussmann JB, Stam HJ. Techniques for measurement and assessment of mobility in rehabilitation: a theoretical approach. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12:455–64.
6. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Thompson AJ. Evaluating neurological outcome measures: the bare essentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 60:127–30.
7. Collen FM, Wade DT, Bradshaw CM. Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability. Int Disabil Stud 1990; 12:6–9.[Medline]
8. Watson MJ. Refining the ten-metre walking test for use with neurologically impaired people. Physiotherapy 2002; 88:386–97.[CrossRef]
9. Hauser SL, Dawson DM, Lehrich JR, Beal MF, Kevy SV, Propper RD, et al. Intensive immunosuppression in progressive multiple sclerosis. A randomized, three-arm study of high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide, plasma exchange, and ACTH. N Engl J Med 1983; 308:173–80.[Abstract]
10. Fischer JS, Rudick RA, Cutter GR, Reingold SC. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. National MS Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Mult Scler 1999; 5:244–50.
11. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992.
12. Bohannon RW, Andrews AW, Thomas MW. Walking speed: reference values and correlates for older adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1996; 24:86–90.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Green J, Forster A, Young J. Reliability of gait speed measured by a timed walking test in patients one year after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16:306–14.
14. Vaney C, Blaurock H, Gattlen B, Meisels C. Assessing mobility in multiple sclerosis using the Rivermead Mobility Index and gait speed. Clin Rehabil 1996; 10:216–26.
15. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, McDermott MP, Bever CF, Cook SD. Quantitative functional measures in MS: what is a reliable change? Neurology 2002; 58:1294–6.
16. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1982; 284:1607–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82:9–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Garber CE, Friedman JH. Effects of fatigue on physical activity and function in patients with Parkinson's disease. Neurology 2003; 60:1119–24.
19. Lord SR, Menz HB. Physiologic, psychologic, and health predictors of 6-minute walk performance in older people. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2002; 83:907–11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
20. Van Deursen R, Button K, Lawthom C. Measurement of spatial and temporal gait parameters using a digital camcorder. Gait Posture 2001; 14:128.
21. Lord SE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Visual gait analysis: the development of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12:107–19.
22. Wiles CM, Newcombe RG, Fuller KJ, Shaw S, Furnival-Doran J, Pickersgill TP, et al. Controlled randomised crossover trial of the effects of physiotherapy on mobility in chronic multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 70:174–9.
23. Wiles CM, Newcombe RG, Fuller KJ, Jones A, Price M. Use of videotape to assess mobility in a controlled randomized crossover trial of physiotherapy in chronic multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17:256–63.
24. Ijzerman MJ, Nene AV. Feasibility of the physiological cost index as an outcome measure for the assessment of energy expenditure during walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83:1777–82.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture 1999; 9:207–31.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Perry J. Gait Analysis: normal and pathological function. Thorofare NJ, Slack Inc, 1992.
27. Hobart J. Measuring disease impact in disabling neurological conditions: are patients’ perspectives and scientific rigor compatible? Curr Opin Neurol 2002; 15:721–4.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
28. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead mobility index: A further development of the Rivermead motor assessment. Int Disabil Studies 1991; 13:50–4.[Medline]
29. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999; 122:141–59.
30. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, Mattson DH, Mihai C, Donohoe KM, Petrie MD, et al. The measurement of ambulatory impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1997; 49:1419–24.
31. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33:1444–52.
32. Willoughby EW, Paty DW. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology 1988; 38:1793–8.
33. Goodkin DE. EDSS reliability. Neurology 1991; 41:332.
34. Albrecht H, Wotzel C, Erasmus LP, Kleinpeter M, Konig N, Pollmann W. Day-to-day variability of maximum walking distance in MS patients can mislead to relevant changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS): average walking speed is a more constant parameter. Mult Scler 2001; 7:105–9.
35. Sharrack B, Hughes RA. Reliability of distance estimation by doctors and patients: cross sectional study. Br Med J 1997; 315:1652–4.
36. Giantomaso T, Makowsky L, Ashworth NL, Sankaran R. The validity of patient and physician estimates of walking distance. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17:394–401.
37. Sharrack B, Hughes RA. The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999; 5:223–33.
38. Sharrack B, Dunn G, Soudain S, Wiles CM, Hawkins S, Young C, et al. The United Kingdom Neurology Disability Scale (UNDS): a novel outcome measure for use in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Personal communication.
39. Ware JE. Measuring patients’ views: the optimum outcome measure. Br Med J 1993; 306:1429–30.
40. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124:962–73.
41. McGuigan C, Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2004; 75:266–9.
42. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: The 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003; 60:31–6.
43. Kenealy P, Beaumont G, Lintern T, Murrell R. Autobiographical memory, depression and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2000; 22:125–31.[Web of Science][Medline]
44. Richardson MT, Leon AS, Jacobs DR, Jr., Ainsworth BE, Serfass R. Comprehensive evaluation of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47:271–81.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
45. Richardson MT, Ainsworth BE, Jacobs DR, Leon AS. Validation of the Stanford 7-day recall to assess habitual physical activity. Ann Epidemiol 2001; 11:145–53.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
46. Bassett DR, Jr., Cureton AL, Ainsworth BE. Measurement of daily walking distance-questionnaire versus pedometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1018–23.
47. Mayo E. The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, MacMillan, 1933.
48. Ng AV, Kent-Braun JA. Quantitation of lower physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29:517–23.
49. LaPorte R, Montoye H, Caspersen C. Assessment of physical activity in epidemiologic research: problems and prospects. Public Health Rep 1985; 100:131–46.[Web of Science][Medline]
50. Bassett DR, Jr., Ainsworth BE, Leggett SR, Mathien CA, Main JA, Hunter DC, et al. Accuracy of five electronic pedometers for measuring distance walked. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1071–7.
51. Coleman KL, Smith DG, Boone DA, Joseph AW, del Aguila MA. Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999; 36:8–18.[Web of Science][Medline]
52. Shepherd EF, Toloza E, McClung CD, Schmalzried TP. Step activity monitor: increased accuracy in quantifying ambulatory activity. J Orthopaed Res 1999; 17:703–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
53. Macko RF, Haeuber E, Shaughnessy M, Coleman KL, Boone DA, Smith GV, et al. Microprocessor-based ambulatory activity monitoring in stroke patients. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34:394–9.
54. Brandes M, Rosenbaum D. Correlations between the step activity monitor and the DynaPort ADL-monitor. Clin Biomech 2004; 19:91–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
55. Pearson OR, Busse ME, van Deursen R, Wiles CM. Quantification of walking mobility in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) using an ambulatory activity monitor—a pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2003; 74:1450.
56. Busse ME, Pearson OR, van Deursen RWM, Wiles CM. Activity indices for measuring mobility in neurologically impaired patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2004; 75:884–8.
57. Matthews CE, Ainsworth BE, Thompson RW, Bassett DR Jr. Sources of variance in daily physical activity levels as measured by an accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34:1376–81.
58. Fahn S, Elton R. Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. In: Fahn S MC, Calne DB, Goldstein M, ed. Recent Developments in Parkinson's Disease. Florham Park NJ, Macmillan Health Care Information, 1987; 153–63, 293–304.
59. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. In: Eisenberg MGR, ed. Advances in clinical rehabilitation. New York, Springer Verlag, 1987:6–18.
60. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965; 14:61–5.[Medline]
61. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB. An extended activities of daily living in scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987; 1:301–5.
62. Ware JEJ, Snow KK, Kosinski M. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, Nimrod Press, 1993.
63. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: The 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003; 60:31–6.
64. Francis DA, Bain P, Swan AV, Hughes RA. An assessment of disability rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1991; 48:299–301.
65. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123:1027–40.
66. Rossier P, Wade DT. The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale in patients with multiple sclerosis: a clinical evaluation of its reliability and validity. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16:75–95.
67. Hoogervorst EL, van Winsen LM, Eikelenboom MJ, Kalkers NF, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. Comparisons of patient self-report, neurologic examination, and functional impairment in MS. Neurology 2001; 56:934–7.
68. Siderowf A, McDermott M, Kieburtz K, Blindauer K, Plumb S, Shoulson I, et al. Test-retest reliability of the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale in patients with early Parkinson's disease: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Movement Disorders 2002; 17:758–63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
69. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001; 57:639–44.
70. Hobart J, Freeman J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson A. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why basic assumptions must be tested. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 71:363–70.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Elsworth, H. Dawes, C. Winward, K. Howells, J. Collett, A. Dennis, C. Sackley, and D. Wade Pedometer step counts in individuals with neurological conditions Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 171 - 175. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Wiles Physiotherapy and related activities in multiple sclerosis Multiple Sclerosis, August 1, 2008; 14(7): 863 - 871. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M E Busse, C M Wiles, and R W M van Deursen Community walking activity in neurological disorders with leg weakness. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, March 1, 2006; 77(3): 359 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||