Introduction There has been increased interest in the objective monitoring of free-living walking behavior using accelerometers in clinical research involving persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). The current investigation examined and compared the accuracy of the StepWatch activity monitor and ActiGraph model GT3X+ accelerometer for capturing steps taken during various speeds of prolonged, over-ground ambulation in persons with MS who had mild, moderate, and severe disability. Methods Sixty-three persons with MS underwent a neurological examination for generation of an EDSS score and undertook two trials of walking on the GAITRite electronic walkway. Participants were fitted with accelerometers, and undertook three modified six-minute walk (6MW) tests that were interspersed with 10–15 minutes of rest. The first 6MW was undertaken at a comfortable walking speed (CWS), and the two remaining 6MW tests were undertaken above (faster walking speed; FWS) or below (slower walking speed; SWS) the participant's CWS. The actual number of steps taken was counted through direct observation using hand-tally counters. Results The StepWatch activity monitor (99.8%–99.9%) and ActiGraph model GT3X+ accelerometer (95.6%–97.4%) both demonstrated highly accurate measurement of steps taken under CWS and FWS conditions. The StepWatch had better accuracy (99.0%) than the ActiGraph (95.5%) in the overall sample under the SWS condition, and this was particularly apparent in those with severe disability (StepWatch: 95.7%; ActiGraph: 87.3%). The inaccuracy in measurement for the ActiGraph was associated with alterations of gait (e.g., slower gait velocity, shorter step length, wider base of support). Conclusions This research will help inform the choice of accelerometer to be adopted in clinical trials of MS wherein the monitoring of free-living walking behavior is of particular value.
References
[1]
Motl RW (2008) Physical activity and its measurement and determinants in multiple sclerosis. Minerva Med 99 (2) 157–165.
Pearson OR, Busse ME, Van Deursen RWM, Wiles CM (2004) Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. Q J Med 97: 463–475. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hch084
[4]
Motl RW, Snook EM, Agiovlasitas S (2011) Does an accelerometer accurately measure steps taken under controlled conditions in adults with mild multiple sclerosis? Disabil Health J 4: 52–57. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2010.02.003
[5]
Dlugonski D, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Suh Y, Balantrapu S, et al. (2013) Steps per day among persons with multiple sclerosis: variation by demographic, clinical, and device characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil in press. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.12.014
[6]
Motl RW, Gappmaier E, Nelson K, Benedict RH (2011) Physical activity and cognitive function in multiple sclerosis. J Sport Exerc Psychol 33 (5) 734–741.
[7]
Gijbels D, Alders G, Van Hoof E, Charlier C, Roelants M, et al. (2010) Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: relevance of capacity and self-report measures. Mult Scler 16: 618–626. doi: 10.1177/1352458510361357
[8]
Daumer M, Thaler K, Kruis E, Feneberg W, Staude G, et al. (2007) Steps towards a miniaturized, robust and autonomous measurement device for the long-term monitoring of patient activity: ActiBelt. Biomed Tech (Berl.) 52 (1) 149–155. doi: 10.1515/bmt.2007.028
[9]
Tudor-Locke C, Bassett DR Jr (2004) How many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health. Sports Med 34 (1) 1–8. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200434010-00001
[10]
Motl RW, Sandroff BM, Sosnoff JJ (2012) Commercially available accelerometry as an ecologically valid measure of ambulation in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother 12 (9) 1079–1088. doi: 10.1586/ern.12.74
[11]
Schmidt AL, Pennypacker ML, Thrush AH, Leiper CI, Craik RL (2011) Validity of the StepWatch Step Activity Monitor: Preliminary findings for use in persons with Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis. J Geriatr Phys Ther 34: 41–45. doi: 10.1519/jpt.0b013e31820aa921
[12]
Motl RW, Dlugonski D, Suh Y, Weikert M, Fernhall B, et al. (2010) Accelerometry and its association with objective markers of walking limitations in ambulatory adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91: 1942–1947. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.011
[13]
Goldman MD, Marrie RA, Cohen JA (2008) Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls. Mult Scler 14: 383–390. doi: 10.1177/1352458507082607
[14]
Motl RW, Dlugonski D, Weikert M, Agiovlasitis S, Fernhall B, et al. (2010) Multiple sclerosis walking scale-12 and oxygen cost of walking. Gait Posture 31: 506–510. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.02.011
[15]
Motl RW, Suh Y, Dlugonski D, Weikert M, Agiovlasitis S, et al. (2011) Oxygen cost of treadmill and over-ground walking in mildly disabled persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci 32: 255–262. doi: 10.1007/s10072-010-0396-0
[16]
Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, Ford CC, Goldstein J, et al. (1998) Extended use of glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) is well tolerated and maintains its clinical effect on multiple sclerosis relapse rate and degree of disability. Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 50 (3) 701–708. doi: 10.1212/wnl.50.3.701
[17]
Ratzker PK, Feldman JM, Scheinberg LC, LaRocca NG, Smith CR (1997) Self-assessment of neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 11: 207–211. doi: 10.1177/154596839701100402
[18]
Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33: 1444–1452. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444
[19]
Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ (2003) Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: The 12-Item MS Walking Scale. Neurology 60: 31–36. doi: 10.1212/wnl.60.1.31
[20]
Learmonth YC, Dlugonski D, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Motl RW (2013) The reliability, precision and clinicallyl meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler in press. doi: 10.1177/1352458513483890
[21]
Pilutti LA, Dlugonski D, Sandroff BM, Suh Y, Pula JH, et al. (2013) Further validation of multiple sclerosis walking scale-12 scores based on spatiotemporal gait parameters. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94 (3) 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.214
[22]
Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M (2004) Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85 (2) 234–239. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.05.002
[23]
Feys P, Severijns D, Vantenderloo S, Knuts K, Hannes D, et al. (2013) Spatio-temporal gait parameters change differently according to speed instructions and walking history in MS patients with different ambulatory dysfunction. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2 (3) 238–246. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2013.01.004
