Biomechanical parameters for gait analysis: a systematic review of healthy human gait

Abstract

Abstract
Background: Modern gait analysis offers a broad variety of biomechanical parameters through which to quantify gait. However, no consensus has yet been established with regards to which biomechanical parameters are most relevant to evaluate during gait analysis in the healthy population.
Purpose: The purpose of the current systematic review was to determine the most relevant biomechanical parameters for gait analysis in the healthy adult population.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched. Two independent reviewers
participated in the article selection and attributed a Level of Evidence score to each article to account for quality based on participant selection, intervention and analysis. A score combining both frequency and
number of articles was calculated. Correlations were carried out between the Level of Evidence score,
Journal Impact Factor and the frequency of biomechanical parameters.
Results: Spatio-temporal parameters were found to be the most often measured biomechanical parameters and reported by the greatest number of articles; walking velocity, cadence and step/stride length appearing to be the most relevant biomechanical parameters for gait analysis in the healthy adult population.
No correlation was found between Level of Evidence score and Journal Impact Factor, nor between the
frequency of parameters and Level of Evidence score.
Conclusion: This systematic review provides recommendations for variables to assess in future gait evaluations in healthy adults.
Keywords: Gait, biomechanics, gait analysis, healthy, adult

Full text

Review Open Access
Biomechanical parameters for gait analysis: a systematic
review of healthy human gait
Mary Roberts1*, David Mongeon1 and Francois Prince2
1Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
*Correspondence: mary.roberts@umontreal.ca
Abstract
Background: Modern gait analysis offers a broad variety of biomechanical parameters through which
to quantify gait. However, no consensus has yet been established with regards to which biomechanical
parameters are most relevant to evaluate during gait analysis in the healthy population.
Purpose: The purpose of the current systematic review was to determine the most relevant biomechanical
parameters for gait analysis in the healthy adult population.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched. Two independent reviewers
participated in the article selection and attributed a Level of Evidence score to each article to account for
quality based on participant selection, intervention and analysis. A score combining both frequency and
number of articles was calculated. Correlations were carried out between the Level of Evidence score,
Journal Impact Factor and the frequency of biomechanical parameters.
Results: Spatio-temporal parameters were found to be the most often measured biomechanical parameters
and reported by the greatest number of articles; walking velocity, cadence and step/stride length appearing
to be the most relevant biomechanical parameters for gait analysis in the healthy adult population.
No correlation was found between Level of Evidence score and Journal Impact Factor, nor between the
frequency of parameters and Level of Evidence score.
Conclusion: This systematic review provides recommendations for variables to assess in future gait
evaluations in healthy adults.
Keywords: Gait, biomechanics, gait analysis, healthy, adult
© 2017 Roberts et al; licensee Herbert Publications Ltd. is is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0). is permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Introduction
Walking is the most common form of locomotion and it is part
of almost all activities of daily living [
1
,
2
]; therefore, the ability
to walk is an indicator of overall health as it dictates autonomy
[
3
]. Although walking is usually learned at a young age, the
mechanics of walking are not as simple as they may appear [1].
From the first studies of human walking elaborated through
a series of photographic images, by early Biomechanics en-
thusiasts Edweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey, gait
analysis as it is known today has evolved significantly [4]. The
walking pattern of individuals has become an area of broad
interest and the focus of much research as seen by the numer-
ous journals and articles published. The importance of gait
analysis lies in its application; through years of research and
experimentation, gait analysis has become widely used as a
means to diagnose pathology, set a prognosis and establish
and evaluate a treatment plan [
5
,
6
]. Today, a variety of differ-
ent parameters of various types exist and are readily used to
examine and explain human gait [7-10].
In clinical settings, gait analysis is often carried out solely
through clinician observation [
11
]. Although clinicians have
developed good expertise through many years of practice and
training, these observations remain subjective [12]. Principal
reason for main, and perhaps sole use of clinician observation
as means of gait analysis, is ease of measurement [8,13,14].
In the research setting, numerous parameters have been
used to quantitatively describe gait. Parameters of various types
such as spatio-temporal parameters, ground reaction forces,
Physical erapy and Rehabilitation
ISSN 2055-2386 | Volume 4 | Article 6
CrossMark
← Click for updates

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
2
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
joint kinematics and the energy expense are a few [1,15,16].
In accordance with evidence-based-medicine, the bio-
mechanical parameters chosen are as important as rigorous
gait analysis technique [17]. Because of the quasi-infinite
number of parameters available, it seems reasonable that
certain parameters would be best suited for gait analysis in
the healthy population.
Systematic reviews have been realized in an attempt
to organize and add understanding to the practice of gait
analysis in various populations. For example, a systematic
review carried out by Sagawa and colleagues [18], using an
original methodological approach, was able to identify the
most relevant biomechanical parameters for assessing gait in
individuals with a lower limb amputation. The results obtained
by Sagawa and colleagues [18] leads to question whether the
same biomechanical parameters are most relevant for gait
analysis in the healthy adult population.
The aim of this systematic review is to determine the most
relevant biomechanical parameters used for gait analysis in
a healthy adult population.The term relevant was defined as
those biomechanical parameters being able to identify gait
abnormalities in the healthy adult population and applicable
to the clinical and rehabilitation setting. This definition is an
adaptation of that used by Sagawa et al. [18].
Methods
Procedure for the identication of selected articles
We performed an online search in three databases: PubMed,
EMBASE and Web of Science. These three databases were select-
ed for search because of their broad inclusion of multidiscipli-
nary topics within the Biomedical and Health Sciences domain.
Each database was searched for all years included in the respec-
tive databases with the last search completed in May 2016.
The following search was inputted to all three databases:
[abstract/title] (speed OR cadence OR (stride time) OR (swing
time) OR (step time) OR (single support time) OR (double
support time) OR (foot flat time) OR (stance time ratio) OR
(swing time ratio) OR timing OR (stride length) OR (step length)
OR (step width) OR angle OR moment OR power OR (center
of mass) OR (ground reaction force) OR (ground reaction im-
pulse) OR (center of pressure) OR rotation OR symmetry OR
velocity OR (stance phase) OR (swing phase) OR (cycle time)
OR (spati* temporal) OR hip Or knee OR ankle OR foot) OR
(biomechanic*) AND ([MeSH] gait OR walking OR locomotion).
In databases where applicable, certain additional parameters
were used to narrow the search. In PubMed, filters including
human studies of adults aged 18 to 65 years old, published
in French and English and with regards to the nature of the
study (i.e., original articles, review articles, case study) were
applied. In the EMBASE and Web of Science databases, filters
were applied to include human studies, French and English
language publications and specific nature of study (i.e., original
articles, review articles, case study).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based
upon the purpose of the systematic review, to examine the
biomechanical parameters used to study healthy gait. Thus,
studies including participants living with pathologies, dis-
abilities, health concerns and/or neurological deficits were
excluded. To be selected, articles had to evaluate adults
aged 18 to 65 years old with no walking aids. Participants
could have been evaluated barefoot, wearing socks, wearing
shoes and/or any combination of these three situations. As
well, no studies were included if they measured the effect of
a treatment or equipment. Selected articles had to at least
evaluate participants walking at their self-selected speed on
an overground and flat surface.
Analysis of selected articles
A census of all biomechanical parameters measured was
undertaken by two evaluators by carefully reading and ana-
lyzing the chosen articles. First, all methodological aspects of
the selected articles were tabulated and briefly summarized.
Second, the biomechanical parameters measured in all articles
were tallied. For each parameter, all articles which measured
this parameter were reported and counted. Third, because of
the many various instruments, techniques, planes of measure-
ment, etc. used to quantify parameters in the studies selected,
the parameters measured were summarized under broader
parameter names (i.e. sagittal, frontal and transverse plane knee
power were combined under the broader name of knee power).
Lastly, after a summation of parameters, the number of dif-
ferent articles measuring a type of biomechanical parameter
was counted; this was also done for single parameters. Indeed,
it seems inevitable to consider not only the most frequently
measured parameters, but as well the number of different arti-
cles which measure a parameter to observe any disparities be-
tween the number of times a parameter was measured versus
the number of different articles which measured this parameter.
In an attempt to evaluate relevance of biomechanical pa-
rameters, both the frequency of measure and the number of
different articles which measure the parameter were combined
to produce a score using the summarized parameters. For the
first factor, all frequency of measurement scores were divided
by the parameter having been measured the most times (hip
power: 66 times) and multiplied by 0.5. For the second factor,
all number of articles were divided by the parameter having
been measured by the most amount of different articles and
multiplied by 0.5. Both values were then added to obtain a
score weighting both factors. It was deemed that both factors
were as important as the other, each contributing to 50% of
the score. The following is an example of the calculation for
walking velocity, which was measured 50 times by 50 articles:
Walking velocity: ((50/66)*0.5) + ((50/50)*0.5)= 0.879.
Quality of selected articles
We evaluated quality of the selected articles by attributing

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
3
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
a Level of Evidence score for each selected article. Our Level
of Evidence score was a modified version of that used by
Sagawa and colleagues [
18
], since they were interested in
gait analysis in a population with a lower limb amputation
and the current systematic review addresses healthy adult
gait analysis. The 14 criteria were subdivided between three
main article elements: 1) selection of participants, 2) interven-
tion and assessment, and 3) statistical validity. The maximum
possible score was therefore 14, with each article receiving
a score of 1 (if they met the requirements) or 0 (if they did
not meet the requirements) for each criterion (score of 1 for
a non-applicable criterion). Two independent evaluators as-
sessed the score of all articles. For any disparities between
scores, both evaluators determined the best suited scoring
through discussion. If a consensus could not be reached by
the two evaluators, a third evaluator intervened in order to
break tie between both scores suggested.
Data/ Statistical analysis
A Spearman correlation was carried out in order to determine
if higher Level of Evidence articles were published in higher
Impact Factor journals. Also, a Spearman correlation was
sought between the mean Level of Evidence attributed to
all articles measuring a given parameter and its frequency of
measurement. All statistical analyses were carried out using
SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., NY). Level of significance was set at p<0.05.
Results
Selection of articles
The preliminary database search, using the previously
mentioned keyword combination, yielded 16 023 abstracts
throughout all three databases. Upon reading the titles and
applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1388 articles
were retained for further selection. After reading the ab-
stract, 515 articles remained. Finally, after a careful reading,
65 articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and
were selected for further analysis (Figure 1). Table 1 outlines
the main methodological aspects of these selected articles.
Participant characteristics
The main participant characteristics of the 65 selected articles
are outlined in Table 1.
Article data quality
The Level of Evidence score attributed to each article was in
agreement between reviewers. The mean Level of Evidence
for all articles was 11.8±1.8, with scores ranging from 6 to 14.
The Level of Evidence scores attributed to the 65 articles are
outlined in Table 1.
Parameters for gait analysis
Table 2 indicates that parameters of various types were
measured and counted in the selected articles. Parameters
from power, work and/or torque were recorded 269 times,
Figure 1. Article selection owchart.
Flowchart as per PRISMA guidelines [19] summarizing the
procedure for the selection of articles aer the interrogation
of three databases. All articles were retained or dismissed
for analysis by the application of the inclusion and exclusion
criteria (see methods). First, the articles were retained or
dismissed on the basis of the article titles. A second step
consisted of the reading of the article abstracts. Finally, all
retained articles were read and a nal selection was made.
spatio-temporal parameters were recorded (256 times), joint
angles (177), moments (115) and force (115). A total of 1097
parameters were counted in 65 articles.
All measured biomechanical parameters in the selected
articles are outlined in
Table 2
. The parameter most often
measured and/or calculated was the walking velocity (50
times) followed by cadence (30 times), stride length (23 times)
and step length (21 times).
Parameter summation
As stated, a summation of parameters was carried out (results
outlined in Table 3) and the results show that the hip power is
the most often measured biomechanical parameter (66 times)
followed by the knee power (61 times), walking velocity (50
times) and the ankle angle (47 times).
Also outlined in Table 3 is the number of different articles
measuring summarized single parameters. Spatio-temporal
parameters were measured in 59 of the 65 articles, angles by
29 different articles and forces in 16 articles. When considering
summarized single parameters, walking velocity was meas-
ured in 50 different articles and stride length and cadence
were measured in 36 and 35 different articles, respectively.
The calculation to account for both frequency of measure-
ment and number of articles was carried out with the highest

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
4
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
Reference Number & Sex of
participants
Age of participants Main Objectives Level of Evidence
[20]30 (15 F: 15 M) 20-29 Basic gait data on groups of healthy young adult Kuwaitis of
both genders was collected to determine if they duplicated the
data published in the Swedish study.
10
[21]19 (19 M) 25.3 (4.1) To determine, over two consecutive strides, if the right and
le lower limbs developed similar power patterns and if their
associated mechanical energies were equal or not in all 3 planes
of motion.
14
[22]17 (8M: 9F) 27.5(5.3) To compare overground and treadmill ambulation for possible
dierences in gait temporal variables and leg joint kinematics.
12
[23]20 (8 M: 12F) 37-62 To evaluate the time-varying behavior, the test-retest reliability
and the concurrent validity of lateral trunk lean and toe-out
angles during prolonged walking in healthy adults.
12
[24]11 (11 M) 28.3 (12.4) An examination of the angular momenta of healthy adult males
walking at three speeds; 0.7, 1.0, and 1.3 times their self-selected
comfortable walking speed.
11
[25]10 (3F: 7M) 27.5; 20-33 To conrm the hypothesis that stride duration variability
exhibits long-range autocorrelations among young healthy
subjects walking on level ground, by using an integrated
approach that combines distinct methods in order to increase
the level of condence. Also, to determine whether the treadmill
disrupts long-range autocorrelations present in stride duration
variability and to determine if the outcomes obtained from the
treadmill were reproducible across two dierent testing days.
11
[26]6 (4M: 2F) 25-45 To improve the understanding of how the central nervous
system (CNS) chooses gait parameters for the modulation of
velocity by proposing a method for characterizing gait strategies
from step frequency and step length analysis.
10
[27]30 (15F: 15M) 23.6 (2.7) To dene the walking speed and gender eects on the center of
pressure (COP) pathway.
11
[28]98 (51 M: 47 F) 23.5(2.7); 22.9(4.9) e research hypothesis was that healthy adults would walk
dierently according to their gender when walking barefoot at
their comfortable speed.
14
[29]14 (8M: 6F) 22.5(3); 23.8(4.1) To determine if there are changes in temporal gait parameters
with a focus on the pelvis when comparing overground and
treadmill ambulation, and to assess the eect of sex.
11
[30]30 (6 groups of 5)
(15 M: 15F)
20-30;
31-45;
46-60
To investigate the eects of age, gender and walking speed on
dierent gait performance measures including joint motion,
ground reaction forces (GRF), electromyography (EMG), heart
rate (HR), and perceived exertion during walking at dierent
percentage of preferred walking speed (PPWS).
12
[31]8 (6M: 2F) 22-30 To examine trunk, neck and head movements to determine a
mechanism for upper body stabilization during walking.
12
[32]10 (5M: 5F) 27.10 (3.25) To demonstrate that the processes responsible for maintaining
local dynamic stability of walking act across multiple consecu-
tive strides of gait.
11
[33]14 (4M: 10F) 30-55 To analyze foot and ankle kinematics from gait recordings of
healthy subjects walking at comfortable and slower speeds.
11
[34]10 (7M: 3F) 23 (2) To analyze the 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint
angular velocity vectors at the ankle, knee and hip during the
gait cycle and to investigate if these joints are predominantly
driven or stabilized.
11
[35]46 (32M: 14F) -- Velocity, stride length and stride frequency were treated as in-
dependent variables in relation to each other in a graphic form
to see how they interact in gait. To achieve this, a Velocity Field
Diagram (VFD) was described.
6
[36]9 (9M) 28.5 (5) To characterize the basic features of the moment-angle curves in
normal walking at dierent velocities.
12
Table 1. Methodological aspects of selected articles.

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
5
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
[37]39 (21M: 18F) 27(4.2);
22.9 (4.1)
To characterize and compare the dynamic joint stiness (DJS) of
the ankle in the sagittal plane during natural cadence walking in
both genders.
12
[38]10 (10M) 23.3 (2.4) To investigate the variability and symmetry of ground reaction
force (GRF) measurements during walking, using time and
frequency domain analysis.
13
[39]16 (16M) 22.8 (1.6) To demonstrate that data from a video-based system could
be used to estimate the net eect of the external forces during
gait, to determine the contribution of the trunk and upper and
lower limbs using their accelerated body masses, and to test the
hypothesis that the thigh mainly assumed lower limb propulsion
during able-bodied locomotion.
14
[40]20 (20M) 23.8 (2.2.) To investigate the changes in horizontal velocity which are
known to inuence many biomechanical characteristics of
human locomotion, with respect to the interlimb symmetry of
walking in a normal population.
14
[41]14 (8M: 6F) 19-56 1) To determine whether asymmetries exist between limbs of
healthy individuals during gait and 2) to examine the rela-
tionship between lower extremity lateral dominance and any
observed dierences.
12
[42]10 (10M) 18-29 1) To determine whether long-range correlations in gait extend
over very long-time scales; 2) to dene the conditions under
which such correlations may exist; and 3) to evaluate potential
mechanisms underlying this fractal property of gait.
11
[43]11(11F) 27.4(4.0); 22-30 To investigate the inuence of walking speed on the amount and
structure of the stride-to-stride uctuations of the gait cycle.
9
[44]13 (7M: 6F) 23.3(3.0) To examine how gait speed inuences healthy individual’s lower
trunk motion during overground walking and to assess if Prin-
cipal Component Analysis (PCA) can be used to gain further
insight into postural responses that occur at dierent walking
speeds.
13
[45]10 23 (4) To investigate the relationship between oscillatory dynamics of
the head and trunk in each plane of motion during walking.
13
[46]68 (32M: 36F) 34 (11) To examine the changes, if any that occur in peak lower
extremity net joint moments while walking in industry recom-
mended athletic footwear.
12
[47]110 (57F: 53M) 29.1(8.9);
28.3(5.04)
To determine if knee joint torques, which are likely relevant to
the development and, possibly, progression of knee osteoar-
thritis, are equivalent between genders during natural, barefoot
walking.
14
[48]30 (17M: 13F) 24.6 (4.0) To evaluate the eect of pelvic rotation, originally described as
the rst determinant of gait, on reducing the vertical displace-
ment of the center of mass (COM) during comfortable speed
walking.
13
[49]20 (10M: 10F) 27-56 To determine three-dimensional foot and ankle kinematics,
using a three-segment foot model and to determine ground
reaction forces, temporal force factors and time-related factors
in normal subjects.
12
[50]25 (25M) 26.2 (5.2) To test if the lower limb joint and thoraco-lumbar moments are
similar in subjects who maintain an average natural forward or
backward trunk inclination during gait and verify if the lower
limbs are equally aected.
12
[51]16 (8M: 8F) 18-28 To study the familiarization time required for reliable sagittal-
plane knee kinematics and temporal-distance gait measure-
ments to be obtained from treadmill walking and whether knee
kinematics and temporal-distance gait measurements obtained
from familiarized treadmill walking can be generalized to over-
ground walking.
14

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
6
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
[52]20 (5M: 15F) 18-30 To investigate the short-term relationships between footstep
variables during steady state, straight-line, over-ground walking
in healthy adults and to explore the extent to which the perfor-
mance of a step or stride is dependent on the performance of an
earlier step or stride in a sequence.
12
[53]10 (7M: 3F) 26.9 (5.7) To examine the eect of walking speed on center of mass
(COM) displacement in the medial-lateral (ML) and vertical
directions.
13
[54]10 (6M: 4F) 23 (5) 1) Quantifying gait pseudo-periodicity using information
concerning a single stride; 2) investigating the eects of walking
pathway length on gait periodicity; 3) investigating separately
the periodicity of the upper and lower body part movements; 4)
verifying the validity of foot-oor contact events as markers of
the gait cycle period.
12
[55]8 (4M: 4F) 24-38 To determine if walking at the predicted frequency produced
greater shock attenuation through the body when compared
with other frequencies at the same walking speed and to assess
the role played by the individual segments in attenuating shock
under dierent frequency-stride length combinations at a con-
stant speed.
12
[56]26 (13M: 13F) 18-35 (1) To compare the kinematics of treadmill gait to overground
gait obtained in laboratory, comparing the present ndings to
those previously reported and (2) to quantify any kinetic dif-
ferences between overground and treadmill gait, including, for
the rst time an analysis of the joint moments and powers of
treadmill gait.
7
[57]48 (10M: 38F) 23-62 To simultaneously statistically test whether the three factors
gender, age and walking speed signicantly aect kinematic gait
data in a reference population.
14
[58]22 (9M: 13F) 35-55 To determine if the variability in the characteristics of the
net external hip adduction moment can be explained by the
strength of the hip abductor musculature, subject anthropomet-
rics, gait velocity and the corresponding characteristics of the
gluteus medius electromyogram captured during gait in healthy
individuals.
12
[59]32 (20M: 12 F) 24.9 (2):
24.1 (1.6)
Gait analysis was conducted on Korean subjects in their 20s and
these gait characteristics were compared to those reported in
previously published studies conducted in Western countries.
13
[60]20 (20M) 25.3 (4.1) To test the hypothesis that limb propulsion is mainly associated
with the interaction of a number of muscle power bursts devel-
oped throughout the stance phase and that the control actions
are mainly achieved by the contralateral limb through dierent
power-burst interactions.
12
[61]19 (19M) 26.2 (3.2) To test the hypothesis that the trailing limb contributes mainly
to forward progression, whereas the trailing limb provides con-
trol and propels the lower limb to a lesser extent.
14
[62]20 (20 M) 25.3 (4.1) (a) To identify the main functions of the ankle and hip muscle
moments and their contribution to support and propulsion
tasks, and (b) to illustrate the interaction between ankle and hip
moment activities.
14
[63]19 (19 M) 25.3 (4.1) To demonstrate that the ankle frontal muscle power absorption
and generation at push-o are related to the foot’s initial posi-
tion at heel-strike with respect to the body center of mass.
13
[64]20 (10M: 10F) 24 (3) To compare bilateral ground reaction force impulses to evaluate
functional asymmetry as an explanation for gait asymmetries.
13
[65]25 (8M: 17 F) 19-32 To report the reproducibility of the invariant walk ratio in re-
peated trials involving young healthy adults walking at a variety
of speeds.
12

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
7
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
[66]22 (10M: 12F) 25.9 (4.1):
20.6 (1.4)
To examine whether there is an optimal walking speed with
minimum intrasubject variability in step length and step width
during free walk and whether there is an optimal step rate with
minimum step length variability during walking with imposed
step rates.
12
[67]28 (14M: 14F) 20-34 To test the applicability a control scheme to the unconstrained
portion of the gait cycle- the swing phase.
11
[68]40 (20M: 20F) 24.1 (3.1):
22.5 (3.2)
To determine the kinematic variability of the lower extreity
joints using methods from the mathematical chaos theory in
a normal walking environment in conjunction with a large
population of healthy young adults and to test the hypothesis
that variability characteristics are dierent between joints and
to further investigate dierences between male and female and
right and le subgroups.
13
[69]10 (5M: 5F) 19-34 1) To introduce the knee moment arm length as a measure to
evaluate knee pre- and postoperatively; (2) to determine the
variability in trials done minutes apart and trials done days
apart; (3) to present some normative data for healthy subjects
for use as reference values in assessment of patients with knee
deformities; and (4) to determine the variability in the hip, knee
and ankle moments in the frontal and sagittal planes, in trials
done minutes apart and days apart.
11
[70]16
(slow:3M: 5F)
(fast: 3M: 5F)
Slow: 20.74
Fast: 19.75
To determine the familiarization period required to obtain con-
sistent measurements of the angular movements of the lumbar
spine and pelvis during treadmill walking.
13
[71]27
(slow: 7M: 6F)
(fast: 5M: 9F)
Slow: 23.5 (5.1)
Fast: 20.6 (2.8)
To study the eect of walking at a self-selected and at a slower
speed on the angular movements of the pelvis and lumbar spine
and how interpretation of speed eects on lumbar spine move-
ments was inuenced by frame of reference, either relative to the
pelvis or relative to a global reference frame.
8
[72]14 (7M: 7F) 46 (13.3) To employ an analytical model to estimate the eects of walking
cadence and laterality on the positive and negative mechani-
cal work performed by the hip, knee and ankle muscles in the
sagittal plane.
12
[73]8 (3M: 5F) 23-34 To measure the mechanical energy changes of the center of
gravity (CG) of the body in forward, lateral and vertical direc-
tion during normal level walking at intermediate and low
speeds.
11
[74]18 (9M: 9F) 35.9 (10) To test the 2D PL (power law) compliance of motion of the
center of mass (CM) within the step, as a premise to further 3D
modeling, so far applied to upper limb motion.
11
[75]62 (21M: 41 F) 41.4 (11.0) To investigate if the detailed pressure data of the footprints of
normal gait add essential information to the spatio-temporal
variables of gait.
6
[76]19 (19M) 25.3 (4.1) To determine if more than one gait pattern exists in able-bodied
young men, by analyzing the dissimilarities in the three-dimen-
sional (3-D) muscle powers developed at the joints of the right
lower limb.
14
[77]9 (9M) 28.7 (4.4) To determine the dierences between angular oscillation curves
of the lumbar spine and pelvis during walkway and treadmill
ambulation.
14
[78]15 (4M: 11F) 25.5 (4.5) To determine if limb dominance aects the vertical ground reac-
tion force and center of pressure (COP) during able-bodied gait.
9
[79]10 (5M: 5F) 24.3 (4.0) Sole-oor reaction forces were measured from ve anatomically
discrete points in the human sole during locomotion on the
treadmill and on the laboratory oor.
14
[80]24 (11M: 13 F) 27 (7) To compare vertical ground reaction forces walking overground
with vertical foot-belt forces for treadmill gait.
10
[81]20 (9M: 11F) 24 (4) To investigate the contribution of passive mechanisms to lower
extremity joint kinetics in normal walking at slow, comfortable
and fast speeds.
12

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
8
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
[82]12 28.5 (3.3) To investigate whether multiple short bouts of gait can be used
for the valid and reliable assessment of variability and local
dynamic stability, and how many bouts are required for their
reliable estimation.
11
[83]21 (10M: 11F) 26.9 (4.5) To assess the validity of the anatomical landmark data derived
from the Kinect’s skeleton tracking algorithm for examining
the spatiotemporal characteristics of gait in young, healthy
individuals.
11
[84]10 (10M) 28.8 (8.3) To demonstrate how vector eld statistics can be used to more
objectively analyse CoP trajectories.
10
Methodological aspects of all selected articles. e above chart depicts the reference, number of participants, sex of participants (M for
male: F for female), the participant age (mean, standard deviation in parentheses and range separated by a hyphen), as well as the main
objectives of the study and the Level of Evidence score attributed to each article (on a possible 14 total points). All available information
concerning participant characteristics was provided. If the articles reported participant age and sex characteristics per group (i.e. fast and
slow walking group), the information is provided as such.
POWER, WORK & TORQUE (269)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Sagittal hip power peak 1 5[60,61,72,76,81]Sagittal hip power peak 2 2[60,61]
Sagittal hip power peak 2 5[60,61,72,76,81]Sagittal hip power peak 3 2[60,61]
Sagittal hip power peak 3 5[60,61,72,76,81]Frontal hip power peak 1 2[60,61]
Sagittal knee power peak 1 5[60,61,72,76,81]Frontal hip power peak 2 2[60,61]
Sagittal knee power peak 2 5[60,61,72,76,81]Frontal hip power peak 4 2[60,61]
Sagittal knee power peak 3 5[60,61,72,76,81]Transverse hip energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Sagittal ankle power peak 1 5[60,61,72,76,81]Transverse hip energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Sagittal ankle power peak 2 5[60,61,72,76,81]Transverse hip energy peak 3 2[60,61]
Frontal ankle power peak 2 4[60,61, 63,76,]Sagittal knee energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Frontal hip power peak 1 3[60,61,76]Sagittal knee energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Frontal hip power peak 2 3[60,61,76]Sagittal knee energy peak 3 2[60,61]
Frontal hip power peak 3 3[60,61,76]Frontal knee energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Transverse hip power peak 1 3[60,61,76]Frontal knee energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Transverse hip power peak 2 3[[60,61,76]Transverse knee energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Transverse hip power peak 3 3[60,61,76]Transverse knee energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Sagittal knee power peak 4 3[72,76,81]Transverse knee energy peak 3 2[60,61]
Frontal knee power peak 1 3[60,61,76]Sagittal ankle energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Frontal knee power peak 2 3[60,61,76]Sagittal ankle energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Transverse knee power peak
1
3[60,61,76]Frontal ankle energy peak 1 2[60,61]
Transverse knee power peak
2
3[60,61,76]Frontal ankle energy peak 2 2[60,61]
Transverse knee power peak
3
3[60,61,76]Sagittal plane knee power 2[21,81]
Frontal ankle power peak 1 3[60,61,76]Sagittal plane hip power 2[21,81]
Frontal hip power peak 3 3[60,61,63]Sagittal plane ankle power 2[21,81]
Frontal hip power peak 4 2[60,61]Frontal plane ankle power 2[21,63]
Sagittal hip power peak 1 2[60,61]
SPATIO-TEMPORAL PARAMETERS (256)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Walking velocity 50 [20,21,27-30,32,33,40,42-
46,48,50-53,55-61,60-
67,61,76,81, 71-
77,79,80,81,83,84]
Stride width 4[28,33,53,59]
Table 2. Measured biomechanical parameters.

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
9
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
Cadence 30 [20,21,22,37,24,26-30,49-56,59,
60,61,72,75,76,79,63,65,66,
67,80]
Swing time 4[22,24,59,75]
Stride length 23 [22,21,35,36,24,28,32,33,43,50,
51,53,56,59,60,61,72,75,76,63,6
7,80,83]
% Stance time 3[21,28,38]
Step length 21 [20,21,26,33,41,43,44,48,52,53,5
4,59,60,61,73,75,76,65,66,67,83]
Step time 4[20,41,75,83]
Stance time 12 [38,24,29,39,40,41,49,59,60,61
75,79]
Time of heelstrike 3[25,31,39]
Gait cycle (%) 10 [34,28,29,44,46,47,50,54,57,59]Time of toe-o 3[31,33,39]
Stride time 12 [25,22,35,29,32,33,44,51,54,56,
80,83]
Breaking phase 2[60,61]
Double support time 7[24,31,33,52,60,61,75]Stride interval 2[42,43]
% Stance phase 6[33,49,50,63,75,76]Stride frequency 2[32,35]
Gait cycle time 5[41,49,75,67,77]Terminal double support time 2[60,61]
% Double support 4[21,28,56,75]Step width 2[54,66]
ANGLES (177)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Maximum ankle sagittal
plane dorsiexion
4[30,41,49,56]Maximum hip sagittal plane exion 2[30,56]
Maximum ankle sagittal
plane plantarexion
4[30,41,49,56]Maximum hip sagittal plane exten-
sion
2[30,56]
Hip sagittal angle 3[22,81,67]Maximum knee sagittal plane exten-
sion
2[41,56]
Knee sagittal angle 3[22,81,67]Frontal plane ankle angular velocity 2[21,63]
Ankle sagittal angle 3[22,81,67]Upward maximum pelvic obliquity
angle
2[29,56]
Maximum knee sagittal
plane exion
3[30,41,56]Downward minimum pelvic obliq-
uity angle
2[29,56]
Foot progression angle 2[57,58]Max knee extension angle 2[22,32]
Sagittal plane ankle angle
position
2[36,49]Pelvic rotation angle 2[48,57]
Sagittal plane hip angle
position
2[36,28]
MOMENTS (115)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Sagittal plane hip moment 6[21,36,46,50,81,60]Peak knee exion moment 2[46,56]
Sagittal plane ankle moment 6[21,36,46,50,81,60]Peak knee varus moment 1 2[46,56]
Sagittal plane knee moment 5[21,36,46,50,81]Peak knee external rotation
moment
2[46,56]
Peak hip extension moment 4[46,50,56,60]Peak knee internal rotation moment 2[46,56]
Peak hip exion moment 4[46,50,56,60]Peak ankle eversion moment 2[46,56]
Peak ankle dorsiexion mo-
ment
3[46,56,60]Peak ankle external rotation
moment
2[46,56]
Peak ankle plantarexion
moment
3[50,56,60]Peak ankle internal rotation
moment
2[46,56]
Frontal plane ankle moment 3[21,46,63]Transverse plane knee moment 2[21,46]
Peak knee extension moment
1
2[50,56]Frontal plane knee moment 2[21,46]
Peak hip adduction mo-
ment 1
2[46,56]Transverse plane hip moment 2[21,46]
Peak hip external rotation
moment
2[46,56]Frontal plane hip moment 2[21,46]
Peak hip internal rotation
moment
2[46,56]Transverse plane ankle moment 2[21,46]

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
10
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
FORCES (115)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Fz1 8[38,30,40,43,46,49,78,80]V1 (vertical maximum force) 3[39,56,59]
Fz3 8[38,30,40,43,46,49,78,80]S1 (sagittal maximum force) 3[39,56,59]
Fz2 7[38,30,40,43,49,78,80]T1 (maximum transverse force) 3[39,56,59]
Fy1 4[38,40,46,49]Fx3 2[46,49]
Fy2 4[38,40,46,49]Time to Fx1 2[38,49]
Fx1 3[38,46,49]Time to Fx2 2[38,49]
Fx2 3[38,46,49]V3 (vertical maximum force) 2[39,59]
Time to Fz1 4[38,40,49,80]S2 (sagittal minimum force) 2[39,56]
Time to Fz2 4[38,40,49,80]S3 (sagittal maximum force) 2[39,59]
Time to Fz3 4[38,40,49,80]T2 (minimum transverse force) 2[39,56]
Time to Fy1 3[38,40,49]T4 (maximum transverse force) 2[39,59]
Time to Fy2 3[38,40,49]Ground reaction forces AP 2[64,74]
ACCELLERATION (52)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
VT head acceleration 2[45,55]AP head acceleration 2[45,55]
SYMMETRY (25)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
Symmetry of Fz1 2[38,78]Symmetry of Fz3 2[38,78]
Symmetry of Fz2 2[38,78]AP COP displacement 2[78]
CENTER OF MASS (22)
Parameter Total Articles Parameter To t a l Articles
COM displacement (vertical) 3[48,53,74]COM velocity (VT) 2[53,74]
COM displacement (M/L) 2[53,74]COM velocity (M/L) 2[53,74]
COM displacement (A/P) 2[63,74]
LOCAL DYNAMIC STABILITY (19)
VARIABILITY (18)
COP (11)
OTHER (36)
Biomechanical parameters measured in included studies. is chart tabulates each biomechanical parameter as it was measured in the
designated study. e reference measuring each given parameter is given, as well as the total for single parameters. e following parameters
are grouped according to their type and a total of number of parameters measured per type is given in parentheses. Only parameters
measured more than once are shown here.

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
11
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
POWER, WORK & TORQUE (269) 13
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Hip power 66 9 Limb energy 6 1
Knee power 61 9 Limb work 6 1
Ankle power 36 9 Foot momentum 6 1
Arm momentum 12 1 Shank momentum 6 1
Energy 8 1 igh momentum 6 1
Hip work 6 1 Knee torque 5 2
Knee work 6 1 Head & neck mo-
mentum
3 1
Ankle work 6 1 Torso momentum 3 1
Hip energy 6 1 Total body momen-
tum
3 1
Knee energy 6 1 Hip torque 1 1
Ankle power 6 1 Ankle torque 1 1
SPATIO-TEMPORAL PARAMETERS (256) 59
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Walking velocity 50 50 Double support 13 11
Stride length 43 36 Step width 6 6
Gait cycle 37 23 Swing time 6 5
Cadence 37 35 Single support 2 2
Stance time 22 19 OTHER 14 4
Stride time 16 16
ANGLES (177) 29
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Ankle angle 47 17 Lumbar angle 7 1
Pelvis angle 37 9 Spine angle 6 1
Hip angle 30 13 Neck angle 2 1
Knee angle 29 14 Head angle 2 1
Trunk angle 8 4 Sacrum angle 1 1
orax angle 7 1
MOMENTS (115) 13
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
L5 moment 5 1 Ankle moment 35 12
Hip moment 37 11 Other 8 2
Knee moment 30 9
FORCES (115) 16
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Vertical ground reaction force 43 13 Lower limb ground
reaction forces
3 1
Anterior-posterior ground reaction
forces
27 9 Upper limb ground
reaction forces
3 1
Medial-lateral ground reaction forces 22 6 Other 8 3
Head and trunk ground reaction forces 3 1
ACCELLERATION (52) 2
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Head velocity 21 2 Ankle velocity 6 1
Trunk velocity 13 1 Knee velocity 4 1
Shoulder velocity 6 1 Ankle velocity 2 1
SYMMETRY (25) 4
Table 3. Summation of parameters.

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
12
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Ground reaction symmetry 12 3 COP symmetry 7 2
Spatio-temporal symmetry 8 1
CENTER OF MASS & GRAVITY (22) 4
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Center of mass 19 4 Center of gravity 3 1
LOCAL DYNAMIC STABILITY (19) 3
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Local Dynamic Stability 18 3
VARIABILITY (18) 3
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
Coecient of variation 8 1 Standard deviation 7 1
COP (11) 3
Parameter Total Number of articles Parameter Tot a l Number of articles
COP velocity 5 2 COP position 2 1
COP displacement 3 1
OTHER (36) 7
Summation of all biomechanical parameters measured in included studies. is chart tabulates each parameter under a broader
theme of parameters as well as the number of dierent articles which measure this summarized parameter. e total number of
parameters measured per type is shown in parentheses beside the parameter type; the total number of dierent articles measuring
a type of parameter is given beside these parentheses. e breakdown of the summation is not shown here. Only parameters
measured more than once are shown.
frequency of measurement being the hip power (66 times)
and the greatest number of articles being walking velocity (50
articles). Walking velocity obtained the highest score (0.879),
followed by stride length (0.686), cadence (0.630), hip power
(0.590) and knee power (0.552). The results of this score are
presented in Table 4.
Level of evidence score and Journal Impact Factor
It was sought whether a correlation existed between the
article Journal Impact Factor (not shown) and the Level
of Evidence score attributed to each article by means of a
Spearman correlation. The result of this correlation is a very
weak, negative and non-significant correlation (rs=-0.133,
p=0.105). The Impact Factor scores of 4 articles [21,54,59,67]
were unavailable and were therefore excluded.
Frequency of parameters and Level of Evidence score
When the frequency of the most often reported parameters
was correlated with the mean Level of Evidence score of arti-
cles (not shown), via a Spearman correlation, a weak, negative
and non-significant correlation was found (r
s
=-0.224, p=0.06).
Discussion
Number of articles
The current review was based on 65 articles. This number
may appear small knowing that the review of Sagawa and
colleagues [18] included 89 articles of a clinical population.
The present study reflects the restrictiveness of our inclusion
and exclusion criteria.
Type, single and summation of biomechanical parameters
Types of biomechanical parameters
Considering types of parameters, it was found that power,
work and energy parameters were measured most often (269
times): spatio-temporal parameters followed closely being
measured 256 times. Joint angle parameters were measured
177 times, joint moment parameters were measured 115 times
and forces were also measured 115 times. In comparison, the
systematic review of Sagawa and colleagues [18], revealed
that parameters of spatio-temporal type were measured 153
times, joint angles 78 times, platform parameters (i.e. ground
reaction forces and center of pressure) 72 times, powers 64
times and joint moments 58 times. Thus, in general, the num-
ber of times a type of parameter was measured was less in
the review of Sagawa and colleagues [18] than in the present
review despite the fact that fewer articles were included for
analysis in the current review.
These larger numbers are explained by the fact that both
studies did not group parameters in the same manner;
therefore, the number of parameters in relation to the total
number of articles included in each study is different. Also,
Sagawa and colleagues [18] carried out a summation of pa-
rameters in which both time sub-parameters and amplitude
sub-parameters were grouped separately. For the purpose
of our systematic review, it was thought more appropriate
to group parameters accordingly, since all are yielded from
one measure.
Omitting these disparities, it is possible to note that spatio-
temporal parameters are of high relevance in both systematic

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
13
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
reviews. As well, all most frequent types of parameters are the
same, although they differ in number and order of relevance.
Single parameters
When looking at single parameters, the walking velocity (50
times), cadence (30 times), stride length (23 times) and step
length (21 times) were those parameters most frequently
measured. These results are in agreement with Sagawa and
colleagues [
18
] who conclude the same parameters were most
often measured: walking velocity, cadence, stride and step
length. It is interesting to note that for these two different
populations the same parameters would appear to be most
relevant. This may be because parameters of spatio-temporal
type have a certain ease of measurement in comparison to
other parameters.
Despite the fact that in the current systematic review,
power, work and energy parameters were the most frequently
reported measures as a type of parameter, when consider-
ing single parameters, the most frequently measured were
spatio-temporal. Interestingly, for power, work and energy
type of parameters, no single parameter was reported more
than 10 times and most parameters were measured only once.
In fact, for these types of parameters, a given parameter can
be measured at different instances of the gait cycle, in three
different planes and for minima and maxima values, making
the number of parameters somewhat inflated.
As well, more minima and maxima power values exist at the
hip joint when compared to the ankle joint, for example. This
may also explain some disparity in the frequency of measure-
ment of some parameters, especially kinematic parameters
of the lower limb joints.
Summation of parameters
After a summation of parameters, we observe that those pa-
rameters most frequently measured are hip power (66 times),
knee power (61 times), walking velocity (50 times) and ankle
angle (47 times). Following parameter summation, Sagawa
and colleagues [
18
] concluded walking velocity (43 times),
knee angle (31), knee moment (27 times) and hip power (26
times) were most often measured. These differences might
reflect that the results are somewhat inflated and the angle,
moment and power parameters need to be interpreted cau-
tiously. Indeed, Sagawa and colleagues [
18
] did not group
parameters in the same way as was done in the present review
and the frequency obtained for angle, moment and power
parameters are smaller. As well, for certain types of parameters
(i.e. power, work and energy), the number of total parameters
measured (i.e. 269 times) may also be inflated. Again, this may
explain some disparity between the number of parameters
measured with regards to the total number of articles.
Another explanation for these differences is the type of
population studied. Indeed, their choice of clinical popula-
tion implied the absence of the ankle joint which can explain
the lack of ankle joint measures in their population with a
transtibial amputation. In the healthy adult population, ankle
joint measures were in the top four most relevant parameters
after parameter summation.
Also interesting is that articles which measure hip mo-
Parameter Frequency Number of articles Relevance score
POWER, WORK & TORQUE
Hip power 66 9 0.590
Knee power 61 9 0.552
Ankle power 36 9 0.363
SPATIO-TEMPORAL PARAMETERS
Walking velocity 50 50 0.879
Stride length 43 36 0.686
Cadence 37 35 0.510
Gait cycle 37 23 0.630
Stance time 22 19 0.357
ANGLES
Ankle angle 47 17 0.526
Pelvis angle 37 9 0.370
Knee angle 29 14 0.360
Hip angle 30 13 0.357
FORCES
Vertical ground reaction force 43 13 0.456
Table 4. Relevance score.
is relevance score is calculated based on the frequency of measurement and the number of
dierent articles measuring the given parameter, as described in the methods section. Only
parameters which scored more than 0.300 are shown here.

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
14
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
ments, also tend to measure joint moments at the knee and
ankle, as they are necessary in inverse dynamic calculations.
As well, it is interesting to note that forces are needed in the
calculation of moments and angular kinematics are needed
for power calculations. Therefore, articles measuring powers,
would also measure kinematics, forces and moments and
this plays an important role when looking at frequency and
relevance of parameters.
In addition to the frequency of measurement, it is also
important to consider the number of different articles meas-
uring a given parameter. Out of the total 65 articles included
in our systematic review, spatio-temporal parameters were
reported by 59 different articles, joint angles were reported
by 29 articles, followed by forces (16 articles), joint moments
(13 articles) and power, work and energy (13 articles). So for
power, work and energy parameters (measured 269 times),
the type of parameters which appear to have been measured
most often, only 13 out of 65 articles measured these types
of parameters. In comparison, spatio-temporal parameters
(measured 256 times), were evaluated in 59 of the 65 articles.
As for the type of parameters discussed above, using the
summarized parameters, the walking velocity remained the
most often measured (50 articles out of 65 total articles) fol-
lowed by cadence (35 articles), stride length (36 articles), gait
cycle parameters (23 articles) and stance time (19 articles).
However, when comparing these results to those of Sagawa
and colleagues [
18
], we observe that a higher number of
articles reported the most common parameters in our pre-
sent study: walking velocity was measured only 43 times in
89 articles, cadence 19 times and step and stride length 19
times and 15 times, respectively. An important note must be
made here that parameters were summarized differently by
both reviews. The differences in the number of articles can,
in large part, be explained by the choice of inclusion and
exclusion criteria.
As shown by our results, both frequency of measurement
and the number of different articles measuring a parameter
are of importance when investigating the most relevant
biomechanical parameters for gait analysis. The results of
the score combining both these factors show that walking
velocity, stride length and cadence appear to be most relevant.
Level of Evidence score
The mean Level of Evidence score for all articles was 11.8±1.8
out of 14 points. This mean score is high; one can argue that
it almost reaches a ceiling effect. It is perhaps because the
Level of Evidence was not discriminatory enough in the limits
for scoring. This can also be due to high quality and soundly
based studies. It is perhaps simpler to carry out quality ex-
perimentation in a healthy population since there may be
less physical restrictions and/or needs as compared to other
clinical populations. This may also be due to the inclusion/
exclusion criteria weeding out the lower quality articles. A
Level of Evidence score with a wider array of possible scores
would be needed.
Relation between the Level of Evidence score and Journal
Impact Factor
The Level of Evidence score of articles were correlatedwith the
Journal Impact Factor. The weak, negative and non-significant
Spearman correlation found is in agreement with that of Sa-
gawa and colleagues [18] who carried out this same analysis
but with the Journal Impact Factors of the year of publica-
tion of their systematic review. It is possible to conclude that
both Level of Evidence score and the Journal Impact Factor
are not related.
Relation between the frequency of parameters and their
mean Level of Evidence score
The mean Level of Evidence of the articles was correlated
with the frequency of the parameter measured. As stated
in the results section, a weak, negative and non-significant
Spearman correlation was found. It is therefore possible to
conclude that the frequency of measurement of a parameter
is not related to the mean Level of Evidence of the articles
which measure this parameter.
Most relevant biomechanical parameters
Spatio-temporal parameters, namely walking velocity, cadence
and step and stride length, appear to be the most relevant
biomechanical parameters in both individuals with a transtibial
amputation and healthy adults. In addition, walking velocity
is of even greater relevance since it also measures, and has a
direct effect on such parameters as cadence and stride length.
Additionally, these spatio-temporal parameters have a cer-
tain ease of measurement: measuring simple spatio-temporal
parameters such as walking velocity would appear to be an
effective and simple manner to add objectivity to clinical
gait analysis which is primarily aimed at ease of measure-
ment [8,13,14].
Future studies should aim to identify if the most relevant
biomechanical parameters for gait analysis found in healthy
adults are also relevant to other clinical populations. Individu
-
als with a transtibial amputation and healthy adults yielded
the same most relevant parameters, but perhaps the results
obtained in other populations would be different, such as
in populations with a neurological disorder (i.e.: Parkinson’s,
Stroke or Cerebral Palsy) or with a more severe mechanical
impairment (i.e.: bilateral trans-femoral amputation).
Conclusion
A systematic review of the literature pertaining to healthy
adult gait was performed and the most relevant biomechani-
cal parameters were identified. Spatio-temporal parameters
were those parameters most often measured and by the most
amount of articles. Additionally, many specific spatio-temporal
parameters were those most often measured (walking veloc-
ity, cadence and step/stride length), walking velocity being

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
15
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
measured most often, and by the greatest number of articles.
Walking velocity, and other spatio-temporal parameters would
therefore appear to be the most relevant biomechanical
parameters to healthy adult gait analysis.
To our knowledge, this is a first systematic review of its
kind in a healthy adult population and the implications of
these findings are important for choosing the most relevant
biomechanical parameters for gait analysis.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Programme de collaboration
Université-Collège du MERST for their financial support.
Publication history
Editor: Mohammad H. Hadadzadeh, Wheeling Jesuit University, USA.
Received: 23-Feb-2017 Final Revised: 26-Apr-2017
Accepted: 24-Jul-2017 Published: 17-Aug-2017
Authors’ contributions MR DM FP
Research concept and design ✓ ✓ ✓
Collection and/or assembly of data ✓ ✓ --
Data analysis and interpretation ✓ ✓ ✓
Writing the article ✓ ✓ --
Critical revision of the article ✓ ✓ ✓
Final approval of article ✓ -- ✓
Statistical analysis ✓ -- --
References
1. Winter DA. Energy generaon and absorpon at the ankle and knee
during fast, natural, and slow cadences. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;
147-54. | PubMed
2. Schuna JM Jr and Tudor-Locke C. Step by step: accumulated knowledge
and future direcons of step-dened ambulatory acvity. Res Exerc
Epidemiol. 2012; 14:107-116. | Pdf
3. Schmid S, Schweizer K, Romkes J, Lorenze S and Brunner R. Secondary
gait deviaons in paents with and without neurological involvement:
a systemac review. Gait Posture. 2013; 37:480-93. | Arcle | PubMed
4. Sutherland DH. The evoluon of clinical gait analysis part l:
kinesiological EMG. Gait Posture. 2001; 14:61-70. | Arcle | PubMed
5. Gage JR. Gait analysis. An essenal tool in the treatment of cerebral
palsy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 126-34. | PubMed
6. Paerson KK, Nadkarni NK, Black SE and McIlroy WE. Gait symmetry and
velocity dier in their relaonship to age. Gait Posture. 2012; 35:590-4.
| Arcle | PubMed Abstract | PubMed FullText
7. Ehara Y, Fujimoto H, Miyazaki S, Mochimaru M, Tanaka S and Yamamoto
S. Comparison of the performance of 3D camera systems. Gait Posture.
1997; 5:251-5. | Arcle
8. Carse B, Meadows B, Bowers R and Rowe P. Aordable clinical gait
analysis: an assessment of the marker tracking accuracy of a new low-
cost opcal 3D moon analysis system. Physiotherapy. 2013; 99:347-51.
| Arcle | PubMed
9. Richards JG. The measurement of human moon: a comparison of
commercially available systems. Hum Mov Sci. 1999; 25:589-602. |
Arcle
10. Schwartz MH, Trost JP and Wervey RA. Measurement and management
of errors in quantave gait data. Gait Posture. 2004; 20:196-203. |
Arcle | PubMed
11. Lord SE, Halligan PW and Wade DT. Visual gait analysis: the development
of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil. 1998; 12:107-19. |
Arcle | PubMed
12. Cous F. Gait analysis in the therapeuc environment. Man Ther. 1999;
4:2-10. | PubMed
13. Krebs DE, Edelstein JE and Fishman S. Reliability of Observaonal
Kinemac Gait Analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014; 97:1027-33.
14. Simon SR. Quancaon of human moon: gait analysis-benets and
limitaons to its applicaon to clinical problems. J Biomech. 2004;
37:1869-80. | Arcle | PubMed
15. Davis RB III, Õunpuu S, Tyburski D and Gage JR. A gait analysis data
collecon and reducon technique. Hum Mov Sci. 1991; 10:575-87. |
Arcle
16. Winter DA, Patla AE, Frank JS and Walt SE. Biomechanical walking
paern changes in the t and healthy elderly. Phys Ther. 1990; 70:340-
7. | PubMed
17. Stanic U, Bajd T, Valencic V, Kljajic M and Acimovic R. Standardizaon of
kinemac gait measurements and automac pathological gait paern
diagnoscs. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1977; 9:95-105. | PubMed
18. Sagawa Y, Jr., Turcot K, Armand S, Thevenon A, Vuillerme N and Watelain
E. Biomechanics and physiological parameters during gait in lower-limb
amputees: a systemac review. Gait Posture. 2011; 33:511-26. | Arcle
| PubMed
19. Libera A, Altman DG, Tetzla J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC and Ioannidis
JPA et al. The PRISMA statement for reporng systemac reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care intervenons:
explanaon and elaboraon. BMJ. 2009; 339. | Arcle
20. Al-Obaidi S, Wall JC, Al-Yaqoub A and Al-Ghanim M. Basic gait
parameters: a comparison of reference data for normal subjects 20 to
29 years of age from Kuwait and Scandinavia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;
40:361-6. | Arcle | PubMed
21. Allard P, Lachance R, Aissaoui R and Duhaime M. Simultaneous bilateral
3-D able-bodied gait. Hum Mov Sci. 1996; 15:327-346. | Arcle
22. Alton F, Baldey L, Caplan S and Morrissey MC. A kinemac comparison
of overground and treadmill walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1998;
13:434-440. | Arcle | PubMed
23. Bechard DJ, Birmingham TB, Zecevic AA and Jenkyn TR. Time-varying
behaviour, test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of lateral
trunk lean and toe-out angles during prolonged treadmill walking. Gait
Posture. 2011; 34:81-5. | Arcle | PubMed
24. Benne BC, Russell SD, Sheth P and Abel MF. Angular momentum of
walking at dierent speeds. Hum Mov Sci. 2010; 29:114-24. | Arcle |
PubMed
25. Bollens B, Crevecoeur F, Nguyen V, Detrembleur C and Lejeune T.
Does human gait exhibit comparable and reproducible long-range
autocorrelaons on level ground and on treadmill? Gait Posture. 2010;
32:369-73. | Arcle | PubMed
26. Breniere Y. Dierenal method of characterizing gait strategies from
step lengths and frequencies: strategy of velocity modulaon. J Mot
Behav. 2003; 35:215-20. | Arcle | PubMed
27. Chiu MC, Wu HC and Chang LY. Gait speed and gender eects on center
of pressure progression during normal walking. Gait Posture. 2013;
37:43-8. | Arcle | PubMed
28. Cho SH, Park JM and Kwon OY. Gender dierences in three dimensional
gait analysis data from 98 healthy Korean adults. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
Avon). 2004; 19:145-52. | Arcle | PubMed
29. Chockalingam N, Chaerley F, Healy AC, Greenhalgh A and Branthwaite
HR. Comparison of pelvic complex kinemacs during treadmill and
overground walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93:2302-8. | Arcle
| PubMed
30. Chung MJ and Wang MJ. The change of gait parameters during walking
at dierent percentage of preferred walking speed for healthy adults
aged 20-60 years. Gait Posture. 2010; 31:131-5. | Arcle | PubMed

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
16
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
31. Cromwell RL, Aadland-Monahan TK, Nelson AT, Stern-Sylvestre SM and
Seder B. Sagial plane analysis of head, neck, and trunk kinemacs
and electromyographic acvity during locomoon. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther. 2001; 31:255-62. | Arcle | PubMed
32. Dingwell JB, Cusumano JP, Cavanagh PR and Sternad D. Local dynamic
stability versus kinemac variability of connuous overground and
treadmill walking. J Biomech Eng. 2001; 123:27-32. | Arcle | PubMed
33. Dubbeldam R, Buurke JH, Simons C, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Baan H,
Nene AV and Hermens HJ. The eects of walking speed on forefoot,
hindfoot and ankle joint moon. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010;
25:796-801. | Arcle | PubMed
34. Dumas R and Cheze L. Hip and knee joints are more stabilized than
driven during the stance phase of gait: an analysis of the 3D angle
between joint moment and joint angular velocity. Gait Posture. 2008;
28:243-50. | Arcle | PubMed
35. Eke-Okoro ST. Velocity eld diagram of human gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
Avon). 1989; 4:92-6. | Arcle | PubMed
36. Frigo C, Crenna P and Jensen LM. Moment-angle relaonship at lower
limb joints during human walking at dierent velocies. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol. 1996; 6:177-90. | Arcle | PubMed
37. Gabriel RC, Abrantes J, Granata K, Bulas-Cruz J, Melo-Pinto P and Filipe
V. Dynamic joint sness of the ankle during walking: gender-related
dierences. Phys Ther Sport. 2008; 9:16-24. | Arcle | PubMed
38. Giakas G and Baltzopoulos V. Time and frequency domain analysis of
ground reacon forces during walking: an invesgaon of variability
and symmetry. Gait Posture. 1997; 5:189-197. | Arcle
39. Gillet C, Duboy J, Barbier F, Armand S, Jeddi R, Lepoutre FX and Allard P.
Contribuon of accelerated body masses to able-bodied gait. Am J Phys
Med Rehabil. 2003; 82:101-9. | Arcle | PubMed
40. Goble DJ, Marino GW and Potvin JR. The inuence of horizontal velocity
on interlimb symmetry in normal walking. Hum Mov Sci. 2003; 22:271-
83. | Arcle | PubMed
41. Gundersen LA, Valle DR, Barr AE, Dano JV, Stanhope SJ and Snyder-
Mackler L. Bilateral analysis of the knee and ankle during gait: an
examinaon of the relaonship between lateral dominance and
symmetry. Phys Ther. 1989; 69:640-50. | PubMed
42. Hausdor JM, Purdon PL, Peng CK. Fractal dynamics of human gait:
stability of long-range correlaons in stride interval uctuaons.J Appl
Physiol 1985, 80: 1448-57. | Arcle | PubMed
43. Jordan K, Challis JH and Newell KM. Walking speed inuences on gait
cycle variability. Gait Posture. 2007; 26:128-34. | Arcle | PubMed
44. Kavanagh JJ. Lower trunk moon and speed-dependence during
walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009; 6:9. | Arcle | PubMed Abstract |
PubMed FullText
45. Kavanagh JJ, Morrison S and Barre RS. Coordinaon of head and trunk
acceleraons during walking. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005; 94:468-75. |
Arcle | PubMed
46. Keenan GS, Franz JR, Dicharry J, Della Croce U and Kerrigan DC. Lower
limb joint kinecs in walking: the role of industry recommended
footwear. Gait Posture. 2011; 33:350-5. | Arcle | PubMed
47. Kerrigan DC, Riley PO, Nieto TJ and Della Croce U. Knee joint torques: a
comparison between women and men during barefoot walking. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81:1162-5. | Arcle | PubMed
48. Kerrigan DC, Riley PO, Lelas JL and Della Croce U. Quancaon of pelvic
rotaon as a determinant of gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82:217-
20. | Arcle | PubMed
49. Kitaoka HB, Crevoisier XM, Hansen D, Katajarvi B, Harbst K and Kaufman
KR. Foot and ankle kinemacs and ground reacon forces during
ambulaon. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27:808-13. | Arcle | PubMed
50. Leteneur S, Gillet C, Sadeghi H, Allard P and Barbier F. Eect of trunk
inclinaon on lower limb joint and lumbar moments in able men during
the stance phase of gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009; 24:190-5. |
Arcle | PubMed
51. Matsas A, Taylor N and McBurney H. Knee joint kinemacs from
familiarised treadmill walking can be generalised to overground
walking in young unimpaired subjects. Gait Posture. 2000; 11:46-53. |
Arcle | PubMed
52. Morris ME, Bilney B, Matyas TA and Dalton GW. Short-term relaonships
between footstep variables in young adults. Gait Posture. 2007; 25:229-
35. | Arcle | PubMed
53. Orendur MS, Segal AD, Klute GK, Berge JS, Rohr ES and Kadel NJ. The
eect of walking speed on center of mass displacement. J Rehabil Res
Dev. 2004; 41:829-34. | Arcle | PubMed
54. Pecoraro F, Mazza C, Zok M and Cappozzo A. Assessment of level-
walking aperiodicity. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006; 3:28. | Arcle | PubMed
Abstract | PubMed FullText
55. Ratclie RJ and Holt KG. Low frequency shock absorpon in human
walking. Gait Posture. 1997; 5:93-100.
| Arcle
56. Riley PO, Paolini G, Della Croce U, Paylo KW and Kerrigan DC. A kinemac
and kinec comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy
subjects. Gait Posture. 2007; 26:17-24. | Arcle | PubMed
57. Roislien J, Skare O, Gustavsen M, Broch NL, Rennie L and Opheim A.
Simultaneous esmaon of eects of gender, age and walking speed on
kinemac gait data. Gait Posture. 2009; 30:441-5. | Arcle | PubMed
58. Rutherford DJ and Hubley-Kozey C. Explaining the hip adducon
moment variability during gait: Implicaons for hip abductor
strengthening. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009; 24:267-73. | Arcle |
PubMed
59. Ryu T, Soon Choi H, Choi H and Chung MK. A comparison of gait
characteriscs between Korean and Western people for establishing
Korean gait reference data. Int J Ind Ergon. 2006; 36:1023–30. | Arcle
60. Sadeghi H, Sadeghi S, Allard P, Labelle H and Duhaime M. Lower limb
muscle power relaonships in bilateral able-bodied gait. Am J Phys Med
Rehabil. 2001; 80:821-30. | Arcle | PubMed
61. Sadeghi H. Contribuons of lower-limb muscle power in gait of people
without impairments. Phys Ther. 2000; 80:1188-96. | PubMed
62. Sadeghi H, Sadeghi S, Prince F, Allard P, Labelle H and Vaughan CL.
Funconal roles of ankle and hip sagial muscle moments in able-
bodied gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001; 16:688-95. | Arcle |
PubMed
63. Sadeghi H, Allard P, Lachance R, Aissaoui R, Sadeghi S, Perrault R and
Duhaime M. Relaonship between ankle frontal muscle powers and
three-d gait paerns. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 81:429-36. | Arcle
| PubMed
64. Seeley MK, Umberger BR and Shapiro R. A test of the funconal
asymmetry hypothesis in walking. Gait Posture. 2008; 28:24-8. | Arcle
| PubMed
65. Sekiya N and Nagasaki H. Reproducibility of the walking paerns of
normal young adults: test-retest reliability of the walk rao(step-
length/step-rate). Gait Posture. 1998; 7:225-227. | Arcle | PubMed
66. Sekiya N, Nagasaki H, Ito H and Furuna T. Opmal walking in terms of
variability in step length. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997; 26:266-72. |
Arcle | PubMed
67. Shemmell J, Johansson J, Portra V, Golieb GL, Thomas JS and Corcos
DM. Control of interjoint coordinaon during the swing phase of
normal gait at dierent speeds. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007; 4:10. | Arcle
| PubMed Abstract | PubMed FullText
68. Son K, Park J and Park S. Variability analysis of lower extremity joint
kinemacs during walking in healthy young adults. Med Eng Phys. 2009;
31:784-92. | Arcle | PubMed
69. Svensson OK and Weidenhielm L. Variability of knee moment arms in
the frontal and sagial planes during normal gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
Avon). 1993; 8:59-65. | Arcle | PubMed
70. Taylor NF, Evans OM and Goldie PA. Angular movements of the lumbar
spine and pelvis can be reliably measured aer 4 minutes of treadmill
walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1996; 11:484-486. | Arcle |
PubMed
71. Taylor NF, Goldie PA and Evans OM. Angular movements of the pelvis
and lumbar spine during self-selected and slow walking speeds. Gait
Posture. 1999; 9:88-94. | Arcle | PubMed

Roberts et al. Physical erapy and Rehabilitation 2017,
http://www.hoajonline.com/journals/pdf/2055-2386-4-6.pdf
17
doi: 10.7243/2055-2386-4-6
72. Teixeira-Salmela LF, Nadeau S, Milot MH, Gravel D and Requiao LF. Eects
of cadence on energy generaon and absorpon at lower extremity
joints during gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008; 23:769-78. | Arcle
| PubMed
73. Tesio L, Lanzi D and Detrembleur C. The 3-D moon of the centre of
gravity of the human body during level walking. I. Normal subjects
at low and intermediate walking speeds. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).
1998; 13:77-82. | Arcle | PubMed
74. Tesio L, Rota V and Perucca L. The 3D trajectory of the body centre of
mass during adult human walking: evidence for a speed-curvature
power law. J Biomech. 2011; 44:732-40. | Arcle | PubMed
75. Tianova EB, Mateev PS and Tarkka IM. Footprint analysis of gait using
a pressure sensor system. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004; 14:275-81. |
Arcle | PubMed
76. Vardaxis VG, Allard P and Lachance R. Classicaon of able-bodied gait
using 3-D muscle powers. Hum Mov Sci. 1998; 17:121-136. | Arcle
77. Vogt L, Pfeifer K and Banzer W. Comparison of angular lumbar spine and
pelvis kinemacs during treadmill and overground locomoon. Clin
Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002; 17:162-5. | Arcle | PubMed
78. Wang Y and Watanabe K. Limb dominance related to the variability and
symmetry of the vercal ground reacon force and center of pressure. J
Appl Biomech. 2012; 28:473-8. | PubMed
79. Warabi T, Kato M, Kiriyama K, Yoshida T and Kobayashi N. Treadmill
walking and overground walking of human subjects compared by
recording sole-oor reacon force. Neurosci Res. 2005; 53:343-8. |
Arcle | PubMed
80. White SC, Yack HJ, Tucker CA and Lin HY. Comparison of vercal ground
reacon forces during overground and treadmill walking. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1998; 30:1537-42. | Arcle | PubMed
81. Whington B, Silder A, Heiderscheit B and Thelen DG. The contribuon
of passive-elasc mechanisms to lower extremity joint kinecs during
human walking. Gait Posture. 2008; 27:628-34. | Arcle | PubMed
Abstract | PubMed FullText
82. van Schooten KS, Rispens SM, Elders PJ, van Dieen JH and Pijnappels
M. Toward ambulatory balance assessment: esmang variability
and stability from short bouts of gait. Gait Posture. 2014; 39:695-9. |
PubMed
83. Clark RA, Bower KJ, Menplay BF, Paterson K and Pua YH. Concurrent
validity of the Microso Kinect for assessment of spaotemporal gait
variables. J Biomech. 2013; 46:2722-5. | Arcle | PubMed
84. Pataky TC, Robinson MA, Vanrenterghem J, Savage R, Bates KT and
Crompton RH. Vector eld stascs for objecve center-of-pressure
trajectory analysis during gait, with evidence of scalar sensivity to
small coordinate system rotaons. Gait Posture. 2014; 40:255-8. |
Arcle | PubMed
Citation:
Roberts M, Mongeon D and Prince F. Biomechanical
parameters for gait analysis: a systematic review of
healthy human gait. Phys er Rehabil. 2017; 4:6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7243/2055-2386-4-6