Validity and repeatability of three in-shoe pressure measurement systems

Price, C ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-1250, Parker, DJ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9952-1225 and Nester, CJ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1688-320X 2016, 'Validity and repeatability of three in-shoe pressure measurement systems' , Gait & Posture, 46 , pp. 69-74.

Preview	PDF - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 4.0. Download (529kB) | Preview
	Microsoft Word - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (2MB)

Abstract

In-shoe pressure measurement devices are used in research and clinic to quantify plantar foot pressures. Various devices are available, differing in size, sensor number and type; therefore accuracy and repeatability. Three devices (Medilogic, Tekscan and Pedar) were examined in a 2 day×3 trial design, quantifying insole response to regional and whole insole loading. The whole insole protocol applied an even pressure (50-600kPa) to the insole surface for 0-30s in the Novel TruBlue™ device. The regional protocol utilised cylinders with contact surfaces of 3.14 and 15.9cm(2) to apply pressures of 50 and 200kPa. The validity (% difference and Root Mean Square Error: RMSE) and repeatability (Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient: ICC) of the applied pressures (whole insole) and contact area (regional) were outcome variables. Validity of the Pedar system was highest (RMSE 2.6kPa; difference 3.9%), with the Medilogic (RMSE 27.0kPa; difference 13.4%) and Tekscan (RMSE 27.0kPa; difference 5.9%) systems displaying reduced validity. The average and peak pressures demonstrated high between-day repeatability for all three systems and each insole size (ICC≥0.859). The regional contact area % difference ranged from -97 to +249%, but the ICC demonstrated medium to high between-day repeatability (ICC≥0.797). Due to the varying responses of the systems, the choice of an appropriate pressure measurement device must be based on the loading characteristics and the outcome variables sought. Medilogic and Tekscan were most effective between 200 and 300kPa; Pedar performed well across all pressures. Contact area was less precise, but relatively repeatable for all systems.

Item Type:	Article
Schools:	Schools > School of Health and Society > Centre for Health Sciences Research
Journal or Publication Title:	Gait & Posture
Publisher:	Elsevier
ISSN:	1879-2219
Related URLs:	Publication
Funders:	Non funded research
Depositing User:	C Price
Date Deposited:	06 May 2016 07:39
Last Modified:	15 Feb 2022 20:41
URI:	https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/38862

Actions (login required)

Edit record (repository staff only)