Assessing walking speed in clinical research

a systematic review

James E. Graham, Glenn V. Ostir, Steven Fisher, Kenneth Ottenbacher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

159 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To provide a systematic review and describe how assessments of walking speed are reported in the health care literature. Methods MEDLINE electronic database and bibliographies of select articles were searched for terms describing walking speed and distances walked. The search was limited to English language journals from 1996 to 2006. The initial title search yielded 793 articles. A review of the abstracts reduced the number to 154 articles. Of these, 108 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the current review. Results Of the 108 studies included in the review 61 were descriptive, 39 intervention and 8 randomized controlled trials. Neurological (n = 55) and geriatric (n = 27) were the two most frequent participant groups in the studies reviewed. Instruction to walk at a usual or normal speed was reported in 55 of the studies, while 31 studies did not describe speed instructions. A static (standing) start was slightly more common than a dynamic (rolling) start (30 vs 26 studies); however, half of the studies did not describe the starting protocol. Walking 10, 6 and 4 m was the most common distances used, and reported in 37, 20 and 11 studies respectively. Only four studies included information on whether verbal encouragement was given during the walking task. Conclusions Tests of walking speed have been used in a wide range of populations. However, methodologies and descriptions of walking tests vary widely from study to study, which makes comparison difficult. There is a need to find consensus for a standardized walking test methodology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)552-562
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Walking
Research
Bibliography
MEDLINE
Geriatrics
Consensus
Language
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Walking Speed
Population

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Clinical evaluation
  • Gait
  • Mobility
  • Review
  • Walking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Assessing walking speed in clinical research : a systematic review. / Graham, James E.; Ostir, Glenn V.; Fisher, Steven; Ottenbacher, Kenneth.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 14, No. 4, 08.2008, p. 552-562.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{38e9678456cf46fa963f430761939c2f,
title = "Assessing walking speed in clinical research: a systematic review",
abstract = "Objective To provide a systematic review and describe how assessments of walking speed are reported in the health care literature. Methods MEDLINE electronic database and bibliographies of select articles were searched for terms describing walking speed and distances walked. The search was limited to English language journals from 1996 to 2006. The initial title search yielded 793 articles. A review of the abstracts reduced the number to 154 articles. Of these, 108 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the current review. Results Of the 108 studies included in the review 61 were descriptive, 39 intervention and 8 randomized controlled trials. Neurological (n = 55) and geriatric (n = 27) were the two most frequent participant groups in the studies reviewed. Instruction to walk at a usual or normal speed was reported in 55 of the studies, while 31 studies did not describe speed instructions. A static (standing) start was slightly more common than a dynamic (rolling) start (30 vs 26 studies); however, half of the studies did not describe the starting protocol. Walking 10, 6 and 4 m was the most common distances used, and reported in 37, 20 and 11 studies respectively. Only four studies included information on whether verbal encouragement was given during the walking task. Conclusions Tests of walking speed have been used in a wide range of populations. However, methodologies and descriptions of walking tests vary widely from study to study, which makes comparison difficult. There is a need to find consensus for a standardized walking test methodology.",
keywords = "Assessment, Clinical evaluation, Gait, Mobility, Review, Walking",
author = "Graham, {James E.} and Ostir, {Glenn V.} and Steven Fisher and Kenneth Ottenbacher",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00917.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "552--562",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing walking speed in clinical research

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Graham, James E.

AU - Ostir, Glenn V.

AU - Fisher, Steven

AU - Ottenbacher, Kenneth

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - Objective To provide a systematic review and describe how assessments of walking speed are reported in the health care literature. Methods MEDLINE electronic database and bibliographies of select articles were searched for terms describing walking speed and distances walked. The search was limited to English language journals from 1996 to 2006. The initial title search yielded 793 articles. A review of the abstracts reduced the number to 154 articles. Of these, 108 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the current review. Results Of the 108 studies included in the review 61 were descriptive, 39 intervention and 8 randomized controlled trials. Neurological (n = 55) and geriatric (n = 27) were the two most frequent participant groups in the studies reviewed. Instruction to walk at a usual or normal speed was reported in 55 of the studies, while 31 studies did not describe speed instructions. A static (standing) start was slightly more common than a dynamic (rolling) start (30 vs 26 studies); however, half of the studies did not describe the starting protocol. Walking 10, 6 and 4 m was the most common distances used, and reported in 37, 20 and 11 studies respectively. Only four studies included information on whether verbal encouragement was given during the walking task. Conclusions Tests of walking speed have been used in a wide range of populations. However, methodologies and descriptions of walking tests vary widely from study to study, which makes comparison difficult. There is a need to find consensus for a standardized walking test methodology.

AB - Objective To provide a systematic review and describe how assessments of walking speed are reported in the health care literature. Methods MEDLINE electronic database and bibliographies of select articles were searched for terms describing walking speed and distances walked. The search was limited to English language journals from 1996 to 2006. The initial title search yielded 793 articles. A review of the abstracts reduced the number to 154 articles. Of these, 108 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the current review. Results Of the 108 studies included in the review 61 were descriptive, 39 intervention and 8 randomized controlled trials. Neurological (n = 55) and geriatric (n = 27) were the two most frequent participant groups in the studies reviewed. Instruction to walk at a usual or normal speed was reported in 55 of the studies, while 31 studies did not describe speed instructions. A static (standing) start was slightly more common than a dynamic (rolling) start (30 vs 26 studies); however, half of the studies did not describe the starting protocol. Walking 10, 6 and 4 m was the most common distances used, and reported in 37, 20 and 11 studies respectively. Only four studies included information on whether verbal encouragement was given during the walking task. Conclusions Tests of walking speed have been used in a wide range of populations. However, methodologies and descriptions of walking tests vary widely from study to study, which makes comparison difficult. There is a need to find consensus for a standardized walking test methodology.

KW - Assessment

KW - Clinical evaluation

KW - Gait

KW - Mobility

KW - Review

KW - Walking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64549163307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64549163307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00917.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00917.x

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 552

EP - 562

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 4

ER -