ArticlePloS one2025
Digital assessment of walking ability: Validity and reliability of the automated figure-of-eight walk test in older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07586553 (Validity and Reliability of the Figure-of-8 Walk Test), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Validity and Reliability of the Figure-of-8 Walk Test (8FWT) in Individuals With Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of reference values of figure of 8 walk walk test in healthy adults.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Observational
- An Overview About Figure-of-Eight Walk Test in Neurological Disorders: A Scoping Review.Neurology international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Figure-of-Eight Walk Test (F8WT) can assess straight- and curved-path walking ability, but the validity and reliability of automated measurement of the F8WT using digital device has not yet been studied. The aim of this study was to verify the validity (method comparison) and test-retest reliability of the automated FW8T (aFW8T) using a digital device based on image analysis by comparing the results of the aF8WT with those of the manual F8WT (mF8WT).
methodsCommunity-dwelling older adults underwent the mF8WT performed by a physiotherapist and the aF8WT using the Digital Senior Fitness Test system. To verify the test-retest reliability, the aF8WT was administered again to a randomly selected group of participants one week after the baseline test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation analysis were used to verify the degree of agreement between the results of and correlation between the mF8WT and aF8WT, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the limits of agreement (LoA) was obtained using Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsThe analysis included 83 participants (mean age 71.6 ± 4.7 years). The participants' mF8WT and aF8WT results were 29.1 ± 4.9 and 29.8 ± 4.9 seconds, respectively. Pearson's correlation analysis showed a very strong correlation between the mF8WT and aF8WT results with r = 0.91 (p < 0.001), and the ICC between the mF8WT and aF8WT results was 0.95 (0.91-0.97), showing excellent agreement. The 95% CI of the LoA was -0.7 (-4.8 to 3.3) seconds in the Bland-Altman analysis. In an analysis of the test-retest reliability of the aF8WT, participants' aF8WT results were 30.9 ± 4.7 seconds (baseline) and 29.6 ± 4.9 seconds (retest), with an ICC of 0.94 (0.81-0.98, p < 0.001), indicating excellent reliability.
conclusionAutomated measurement of the F8WT using a digital device showed excellent validity and reliability. The aF8WT can be used to assess and monitor the walking ability of community-dwelling older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.