ContentList volumes - List articles in this issue
Is gait speed a valid measure to predict community ambulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease?
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of gait speed for community walking in Parkinson’s disease and to develop a multivariate prediction model for community walking.
DESIGN: Data from baseline assessments in a randomized clinical trial were used.
SUBJECTS: A total of 153 patients with Parkinson’s disease were included.
METHODS: Community walking was evaluated using the mobility domain of the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Index (NEAI). Patients who scored 3 points on item 1 (“Did you walk around outside?”) and item 5 (“Did you cross roads?”) were considered community walkers. Gait speed was measured with the 6-m or 10-m timed walking test. Age, gender, marital status, disease duration, disease severity, motor impairment, balance, freezing of gait, fear of falling, previous falls, cognitive function, executive function, fatigue, anxiety and depression were investigated for their contribution to the multivariate model.
RESULTS: Seventy patients (46%) were classified as community walkers. A gait speed of 0.88 m/s correctly predicted 70% of patients as community walkers. The multivariate model, including gait speed and fear of falling, correctly predicted 78% of patients as community walkers.
CONCLUSION: Timed walking tests are valid measurements to predict community walking in Parkinson’s disease. However, evaluation of community walking should include an assessment of fear of falling.
Roy G. Elbers, Erwin E. H. van Wegen, John Verhoef, Gert Kwakkel
Department of Physiotherapy, University of Applied Sciences Leiden, PO BOX 382, 2300 AJ Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: email@example.com
2. Morris M, Iansek R, Matyas T, Summers J. The pathogenesis of gait hypokinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 1994; 117: 1169–1181.
3. Jones D, Rochester L, Birleson A, Hetherington V, Nieuwboer A, Willems A, et al. Everyday walking with Parkinson’s disease: understanding personal challenges and strategies. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 1213–1221.
4. Rochester L, Hetherington V, Jones D, Nieuwboer A, Willems A, Kwakkel G, et al. Attending to the task: interference effects of functional tasks on walking in Parkinson’s disease and the roles of cognition, depression, fatigue and balance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1578–1585.
5. Morris M. Locomotor training in people with Parkinson’s disease. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 1426–1435.
6. Lord S, McPherson K, McNaughton H, Rochester L, Weatherall M. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 234–239.
7. Patla A, Shumway-Cook A. Dimensions of mobility: defining the complexity and difficulty associated with community mobility. J Aging Phys Act 1999; 7: 7–19.
8. Van de Port I, Kwakkel G, Lindeman E. Community ambulation in patients with chronic stroke: how is it related to gait speed? J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 23–27.
9. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley J, Mulroy S. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26: 982–989.
10. Lernier-Frankiel M, Vargas S, Brown M, Krusell L, Schoneberger W. Functional community ambulation: what are your criteria? Clin Manag Phys Ther 1986; 6: 12–15.
11. Tan D, Danoudis M, McGinley J, Morris M. Relationships between motor aspects of gait impairments and activity limitations in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2012; 18: 117–124.
12. Lim I, van Wegen E, de Goede C, Jones D, Rochester L, Hetherington V, et al. Measuring gait and gait-related activities in Parkinson’s patients’ own home environment: a reliability, responsiveness and feasibility study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2005; 11: 19–24.
13. Lord S, Rochester L. Measurement of community ambulation after stroke: current status and future developments. Stroke 2005; 36: 1457–1461.
14. Nieuwboer A, Kwakkel G, Rochester L, Jones D, van Wegen E, Willems A, et al. Cueing training in the home improves gait-related mobility in Parkinson’s disease: the Rescue trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78: 134–140.
15. Hughes A, Daniel S, Kilford L, Lees A. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinic-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55: 181–184.
16. Hoehn M, Yahr M. Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology 1967; 5: 427–442.
17. Fahn S, Elton E. The unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Calne D, editor. Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease. New Jersey: Macmillan Health Care Information; 1987, p. 153–163.
18. Folstein M, Folstein S. Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.
19. Nouri F, Lincoln N. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 301–305.
20. Duncan P, Weiner D, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol 1990; 45: M192–M197.
21. Giladi N, Shabtai H, Simon E, Biran S, Tal J, Korczyn A. Construcction of freezing of gait questionnaire for patients with Parkinsonism. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2000; 6: 165–170.
22. Nilsson M, Drake A, Hagell P. Assessment of fall-related self-efficacy and activity avoidance in people with Parkinson’s disease. BMC Geriatr 2010; 10: 78.
23. Stack E, Ashburn A. Fall events described by people with Parkinson’s disease: implications for clinical interviewing and the research agenda. Physiother Res Int 1999; 4: 190–200.
24. Burgess P, Shallice T. The Hayling and Brixton Tests. Bury St Edmonds: Thames Valley Test Company Ltd; 1997.
25. Smets E, Garsen B, Bonke B, de Haes J. The multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res 1995; 39: 315–325.
26. Elbers R, van Wegen E, Verhoef J, Kwakkel G. Reliability and structural validity of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2012; 18: 532–536.
27. Marinus J, Leentjens A, Visser M, Stiggelbout A, van Hilten J. Evaluation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 2002; 25: 318–324.
28. Venkatraman E. A permutation test to compare receiver operating characteristic curves. Biometrics 2000; 56: 1134–1138.
29. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 77.
30. Hanley J, McNeil B. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839–843.
31. Elbers R, van Wegen E, Rochester L, Hetherington V, Nieuwboer A, Willems A, et al. Is impact of fatigue an independent factor associated with physical activity in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease? Mov Disord 2009; 24: 1512–1518.
32. Shumway-Cook A, Patla A, Stewart A, Ferrucci L, Ciol M, Guralnik J. Environmental demands associated with community mobility in older adults with and without mobility disabilities. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 670–681.
33. Bloem B, Hausdorff J, Visser J, Giladi N. Falls and freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease: a review of two interconnected, episodic phenomena. Mov Disord 2004; 19: 871–884.
View at PubMed