Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Swiss National Science Foundation | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The AAGaTT study, is a monocentric, two-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The objective is to assess the efficacy of an arm-in-arm walking program for older people at risk of falling. Gait training imply that the older participants must walk while synchronizing steps with a younger partner.
A high level of physical activity is the cornerstone of healthy aging. Falls are a major issue in elderly population, and exercising can mitigate their occurrence. However, the type of exercise-and the optimal way to deliver it-that maximises efficacy is still unknown. The ideal-most efficient-exercise intervention should have the following characteristics: it should have a specific effect on fall risk mitigation, it should be of sufficient intensity to improve cardiovascular fitness and muscle strength, it should be safe, it should not induce high costs, and it should be sufficiently enjoyable and motivational to induce a high adherence and compliance. The present trial aims at testing an innovative exercise intervention that may exhibit all these advantages.
The intervention will consist in four weeks of 30min arm-in-arm synchronized gait training three times a week. Convincing evidence from the literature supports the use of rhythmic externals cues, either auditory or visual, to improve the efficacy of gait training for fall risk reduction in seniors. Synchronizing gait with a younger partner may bring further benefits.
We will focus on clinically relevant outcomes to highlight potential benefits of the intervention in term of gait quality, balance, fall risk mitigation, physical activity level, mood, and well-being.
Gait quality will be assessed through two inertial sensors attached to the low back and foot. Six gait assessement sessions are planned: at baseline (before randomization), at the end of each training week, and at week 7 (follow-up). Participants will walk at their preferred speed over 200m.
We will also include functional tests and self-filled questionnaires to evaluate participant's abilities and mood.
Falls occuring within 18 months after inclusion will be tracked via an online questionnaire every three months.
We will assess the superiority of arm-in-arm gait training compared to standard walking (without gait synchronisation) via a randomized-controlled design. The perception of the intervention by elderly participants will be explored via a qualitative analysis.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal gait training | Active Comparator | The gait training session will consist in 30 min walking side-by-side. If any, the session will take place along an indoor circuit to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. The participants will walk side by side without contact and without instructions about gait synchronisation. They will have to agree on a comfortable pace for the older participant. The gait training session will be repeated three times a week for four weeks. The last session of each week will also include an assessement of gait quality. |
|
| Arm-in-arm gait training | Experimental | The gait training session will consist in 30 min walking side-by-side. If any, the session will take place along an indoor circuit to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. The participants will be asked to walk arm-in-arm while synchronizing their steps. They will have to agree on a comfortable pace for the older participant. The gait training session will be repeated three times a week for four weeks. The last session of each week will also include an assessement of gait quality. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arm-in-arm gait training | Other | An older adult walk side-by-side, arm-in-arm with a younger adult while synchronizing steps. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). | Week 4 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). | Baseline |
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Older Participant
Younger Participant
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philippe Terrier, PhD | Contact | +41 32 930 12 55 | philippe.terrier@he-arc.ch | |
| Jeremy Torrent, MSc | Contact | +41 32 930 12 73 | jeremy.torrent@he-arc.ch |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Philippe Terrier, PhD | Haute-Ecole Arc | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haute-Ecole Arc Santé | Recruiting | Neuchâtel | 2000 | Switzerland |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30271666 | Background | Ghai S, Ghai I, Effenberg AO. Effect of Rhythmic Auditory Cueing on Aging Gait: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aging Dis. 2018 Oct 1;9(5):901-923. doi: 10.14336/AD.2017.1031. eCollection 2018 Oct. | |
| 26126532 | Background | Van Abbema R, De Greef M, Craje C, Krijnen W, Hobbelen H, Van Der Schans C. What type, or combination of exercise can improve preferred gait speed in older adults? A meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2015 Jul 1;15:72. doi: 10.1186/s12877-015-0061-9. |
Not provided
Not provided
At the end of the study, the final dataset will be anonymized. The anonymization process will constitute in the replacement of the participant unique ID (identification) by a random number.
The acceleration data will be publicly shared on an online digital data repository (Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/).
The shared data will not contain identification information; that is, shared personal data will be restricted to sex, body mass, body height, and age at time of the experiment (rounded year). Only the overall scores of questionnaires will be shared. Regarding the results of the qualitative study, only the anonymized transcripts will be shared. The audio files will be erased after the end of the study.
The study protocol will be published in an open-access journal.
Study protocol will be published within 6 months after first recruitment. Anonymized dataset and acceleration data will be uploaded in parallel of result publications, within one year after the end of the study
Study shared data will be publicly available on an open-access website following the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles (zenodo.org).
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D051346 | Mobility Limitation |
| D009043 | Motor Activity |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
The AAGaTT study, is a monocentric, two-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The superiority of arm-in-arm synchronized gait training will be assessed versus standard walking (i.e., walking side-by-side without gait synchronization).
Not provided
Not provided
Blinding is not possible due to the nature of the intervention
Not provided
| Normal gait training | Other | An older adult walk side-by-side, without contact, with a younger adult without step synchronization. |
|
| Week 1 |
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). | Week 2 |
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). | Week 3 |
| Walking speed | Habitual (preferred) walking speed to cover 200m. Normal values for older men: 1.21m/s -1.32m/s), older women 1.07m/s -1.19m/s). | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Average step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Baseline |
| Step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 1 |
| Step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 2 |
| Step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 3 |
| Step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 4 |
| Step frequency | Average number of steps per second while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Baseline |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 1 |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 2 |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 3 |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 4 |
| Step length | Average step length while walking at habitual (preferred) speed over 200m. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Baseline |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 1 |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 2 |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 3 |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 4 |
| Step symmetry | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Stride regularity | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Baseline |
| Stride regularity | Left / right symmetry of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a symmetric gait. | Week 1 |
| Stride regularity | Regularity of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a less variable gait. | Week 2 |
| Stride regularity | Regularity of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a less variable gait. | Week 3 |
| Stride regularity | Regularity of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a less variable gait. | Week 4 |
| Stride regularity | Regularity of the gait assessed via the autocorrelation method. A high value shows a less variable gait. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Baseline |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Week 1 |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Week 2 |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Week 3 |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Week 4 |
| Gait Stability | short-term Local dynamic stability (maximal Lyapunov exponent). A low value shows a more stable gait and a lower risk of fall. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Baseline |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 1 |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 2 |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 3 |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 4 |
| Gait attentional demand | Attractor complexity index. A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Baseline |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 1 |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA).A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 2 |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA).A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 3 |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA).A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 4 |
| Fractal index | Attentional demand measured via detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA).A high value indicates that less attention is dedicated to control gait (automated gait). | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Baseline |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Week 1 |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Week 2 |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Week 3 |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Week 4 |
| Stride time variability | Variability of stride (gait cycle) duration over 200m walking. A high value shows a high stride-to-stride variability. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Time to perform Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Baseline |
| Time to perform Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Week 1 |
| Time to perform Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Week 2 |
| Time to perform Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Week 3 |
| Time to perform the Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Week 4 |
| Time to perform the Timed up-and-go (TUG) test. | The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a clinical test used to assess balance and walking ability in older populations. The test measures the time a participant take to get up from an armed chair, walk three meters to a line drawn on the floor, turn around and sit back down in the same chair. The time is measured in seconds. The results can be interpreted the following way:
| Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Average time held on a leg obtained following the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Baseline |
| Average time held on a leg obtained following the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Week 1 |
| Average time held on a leg obtained following the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Week 2 |
| Average time held on a leg obtained following the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Week 3 |
| Average time held on a leg obtained following the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Week 4 |
| Average time held on a leg obtained accordion to the Unipedal stance test | The Unipedal stance test measure the ability to stand on one leg and maintain balance. The participants are asked to stand as long as possible on one leg. The exercise is repeated three times for each leg. The time is measure in seconds. The average of the scores is calculated. The mean time held for people aged 70-79 is 14.2 +/- 9.3 seconds. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Score at the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) | The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a self-rating scale designed for rating depression in older adults. The GDS questionnaire is composed of 15 questions. 10 of the questions indicate the presence of depression when answered positively, the 5 others indicate the presence of depression if answered negatively.
| Baseline |
| Score at the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) | The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a self-rating scale designed for rating depression in older adults. The GDS questionnaire is composed of 15 questions. 10 of the questions indicate the presence of depression when answered positively, the 5 others indicate the presence of depression if answered negatively.
| Week 4 |
| Score at the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) | The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a self-rating scale designed for rating depression in older adults. The GDS questionnaire is composed of 15 questions. 10 of the questions indicate the presence of depression when answered positively, the 5 others indicate the presence of depression if answered negatively.
| Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Score at the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) | The FES-I questionnaire measure the "concern about falling". The questionnaire is composed of 16 questions with 4 choices valued from 1 to 4: "not at all concerned" (1), "a little concerned" (2), "somewhat concerned" (3), and "very concerned" (4). The minimum score is 16 and the highest 64.
| Baseline |
| Score at the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) | The FES-I questionnaire measure the "concern about falling". The questionnaire is composed of 16 questions with 4 choices valued from 1 to 4: "not at all concerned" (1), "a little concerned" (2), "somewhat concerned" (3), and "very concerned" (4). The minimum score is 16 and the highest 64.
| Week 4 |
| Score at the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) | The FES-I questionnaire measure the "concern about falling". The questionnaire is composed of 16 questions with 4 choices valued from 1 to 4: "not at all concerned" (1), "a little concerned" (2), "somewhat concerned" (3), and "very concerned" (4). The minimum score is 16 and the highest 64.
| Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Level of physical activity over the last seven days | The "Questionnaire d'activité physique pour les personnes âgées (QAPPA)" evaluates the level of physical activity (LoPA) over the last 7days. Moderate (M) and Vigorous (V) physical activity (PA) are distinguished. The time spent per week (minutes) is multiplied by 8 for V activities and by 4 for the M activities and indicate the level of MET-min/week (Metabolic Equivalent of Task). Moderate LoPA:
High LoPA:
Low LoPA: cases that do not meet the classification for moderate or high level of activity. | Baseline |
| Level of physical activity over the last seven days | The "Questionnaire d'activité physique pour les personnes âgées (QAPPA)" evaluates the level of physical activity (LoPA) over the last 7days. Moderate (M) and Vigorous (V) physical activity (PA) are distinguished. The time spent per week (minutes) is multiplied by 8 for V activities and by 4 for the M activities and indicate the level of MET-min/week (Metabolic Equivalent of Task). Moderate LoPA:
High LoPA:
Low LoPA: cases that do not meet the classification for moderate or high level of activity. | Week 4 |
| Level of physical activity over the last seven days | The "Questionnaire d'activité physique pour les personnes âgées (QAPPA)" evaluates the level of physical activity (LoPA) over the last 7days. Moderate (M) and Vigorous (V) physical activity (PA) are distinguished. The time spent per week (minutes) is multiplied by 8 for V activities and by 4 for the M activities and indicate the level of MET-min/week (Metabolic Equivalent of Task). Moderate LoPA:
High LoPA:
Low LoPA: cases that do not meet the classification for moderate or high level of activity. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| Measure of the quality of life and well-being | The Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP) CAPability (ICECAP-O) is a capability-based measure of the general quality of life of older people (≥ 65 years old). The ICECAP-O measures 5 attributes,each attribute has 4 level of answers. The 20 ICECAP-O attribute levels are estimated independently of one another such as the lowest level of capability (no capability on all attributes) was given a total value of 0 and the highest level of capability (full capability on all attributes) was given a total value of 1. The ICEPCAP-O range on a scale from 0 to 1. | Baseline |
| Measure of the quality of life and well-being | The Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP) CAPability (ICECAP-O) is a capability-based measure of the general quality of life of older people (≥ 65 years old). The ICECAP-O measures 5 attributes,each attribute has 4 level of answers. The 20 ICECAP-O attribute levels are estimated independently of one another such as the lowest level of capability (no capability on all attributes) was given a total value of 0 and the highest level of capability (full capability on all attributes) was given a total value of 1. The ICEPCAP-O range on a scale from 0 to 1. | Week 4 |
| Number of falls over the past year | The number of falls over the past year will be use to determine the retrospective fall rate. | Baseline |
| Number of falls over three months | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 0 and 3 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Number of falls over three month | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 3 and 6 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Number of falls over three months | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 6 and 9 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Number of falls over three months | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 9 and 12 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Number of falls over three months | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 12 and 15 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Number of falls over three months | The number of falls over three month will be used to determine the prospective fall rate. The measure will be taken every three month until 18 moths after the beginning of the training program or in the case the participants felt two times between the measure and the end of the training program. | Between 12 and 18 months after the end of the training program (week 4). |
| Perception of the training program | Narrative feedback after transcription of semi-structured interviews. Quotes will be chosen to demonstrate themes which were common, or which represented a summary of a topic. | Week 4 |
| Number of participants withdrawing from the study | The number of participants withdrawing from the study will be used to measure the adherence to the training program. | Week 7 (follow-up) |
| 30703272 | Background | Sherrington C, Fairhall NJ, Wallbank GK, Tiedemann A, Michaleff ZA, Howard K, Clemson L, Hopewell S, Lamb SE. Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 31;1(1):CD012424. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2. |
| 30564149 | Background | Almurad ZMH, Roume C, Blain H, Delignieres D. Complexity Matching: Restoring the Complexity of Locomotion in Older People Through Arm-in-Arm Walking. Front Physiol. 2018 Dec 4;9:1766. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01766. eCollection 2018. |
| 28368823 | Background | Terrier P, Le Carre J, Connaissa ML, Leger B, Luthi F. Monitoring of Gait Quality in Patients With Chronic Pain of Lower Limbs. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Oct;25(10):1843-1852. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2688485. Epub 2017 Mar 28. |
| 30212783 | Background | Terrier P, Reynard F. Maximum Lyapunov exponent revisited: Long-term attractor divergence of gait dynamics is highly sensitive to the noise structure of stride intervals. Gait Posture. 2018 Oct;66:236-241. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.010. Epub 2018 Aug 14. |
| 21820535 | Background | Bohannon RW, Williams Andrews A. Normal walking speed: a descriptive meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2011 Sep;97(3):182-9. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2010.12.004. Epub 2011 May 11. |
| 37674129 | Derived | Gigonzac M, Terrier P. Restoring walking ability in older adults with arm-in-arm gait training: study protocol for the AAGaTT randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2023 Sep 6;23(1):542. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04255-9. |