↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Joint Gait Patterns Defined by a Delphi Consensus Study Is Related to Gross Motor Function, Topographical Classification, Weakness, and Spasticity, in Children with Cerebral Palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence of Joint Gait Patterns Defined by a Delphi Consensus Study Is Related to Gross Motor Function, Topographical Classification, Weakness, and Spasticity, in Children with Cerebral Palsy
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Nieuwenhuys, Eirini Papageorgiou, Simon-Henri Schless, Tinne De Laet, Guy Molenaers, Kaat Desloovere

Abstract

During a Delphi consensus study, a new joint gait classification system was developed for children with cerebral palsy (CP). This system, whose reliability and content validity have previously been established, identified 49 distinct joint patterns. The present study aims to provide a first insight toward the construct validity and clinical relevance of this classification system. The retrospective sample of convenience consisted of 286 patients with spastic CP (3-18 years old, GMFCS levels I-III, 166 with bilateral CP). Kinematic and kinetic trials from three-dimensional gait analysis were classified according to the definitions of the Delphi study, and one classified trial was randomly selected for each included limb (n = 446). Muscle weakness and spasticity were assessed for different muscle groups acting around the hip, knee, and ankle. Subsequently, Pearson Chi square tests, Cramer's V, and adjusted standardized residuals were calculated to explore the strength and direction of the associations between the joint patterns, and the different patient-specific characteristics (i.e., age, GMFCS level, and topographical classification) or clinical symptoms (muscle weakness and spasticity). Patient-specific characteristics showed several significant associations with the patterns of different joints, but the strength of most identified associations was weak. Apart from the knee during stance phase and the pelvis in the sagittal plane, the results systematically showed that the patterns with "minor gait deviations" were the most frequently observed. These minor deviations were found significantly more often in limbs with a lower level of spasticity and good muscle strength. Several other pathological joint patterns were moderately associated with weakness or spasticity, including but not limited to "outtoeing" for weakness and "intoeing" for spasticity. For the joints in the sagittal plane, significantly stronger associations were found with muscle weakness and spasticity, possibly because most of the evaluated muscles in this study mainly perform sagittal plane motions. Remarkably, the hip patterns in the coronal plane did not associate significantly with any of the investigated variables. Although further validation is warranted, this study contributes to the construct validity of the joint patterns of the Delphi consensus study, by demonstrating their ability to distinguish between clinically relevant subgroups in CP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 27%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Engineering 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,472,379
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,990
of 7,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,782
of 310,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#123
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.