Agreement study on gait assessment using a video-assisted rating method in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus

Autoři: Masatsune Ishikawa aff001;  Shigeki Yamada aff002;  Kazuo Yamamoto aff003
Působiště autorů: Rakuwa Villa Ilios, Kyoto, Japan aff001;  Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Center, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Kyoto, Japan aff002;  Department of Neurosurgery, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Kyoto, Japan aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article


Gait disturbance is a major symptom of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and is assessed by raters of different professions or with different degrees of experience. Agreement studies are usually done by two raters or more, and comparisons among multiple groups of raters are rare. In this study, we aimed to examine the agreement among multiple groups of raters on gait patterns and a grading scale through a video-assisted gait analysis in patients with iNPH. Fifteen participants with iNPH were enrolled. Gait was assessed according to seven patterns, including freezing and wide-based gaits. The levels of severity (evident, mild, none) were rated by three groups of raters (two neurosurgeons [DR2], three experienced physiotherapists [PTe3], and two less experienced physiotherapists [PTl2]) through a simultaneous video viewing session. Severity of gait disturbance (GSg) was rated using the Japanese iNPH grading scaleiNPHGS, and Krippendorff alpha was computed to assess agreement, with alpha ≥0.667 indicating good agreement and alpha ≥0.8 indicating excellent agreement. For group comparisons, 84%, not 95%, confidence intervals were applied. Among the seven gait patterns in the first assessment, excellent agreement was observed in wide-based and short-stepped gaits in only DR2. Good agreement was observed in four patterns, but the agreement by two groups was in shuffling and wide-based gait. There were no gait patterns showing good agreement among three groups. In the second assessment, excellent agreement was observed in three patterns but no gait patterns showed good agreement between two groups or more. Learning effect was observed only for standing difficulty in DR2. In contrast, good or nearly good agreement on GSg was observed among the three groups with excellent agreement in two groups. Agreement on gait patterns among the three groups of raters was not high, but agreement on the iNPHGS was high, indicating the importance of a precise description facilitating differentiation between neighboring grades.

Klíčová slova:

Alzheimer's disease – Cerebrospinal fluid – Feet – Gait analysis – Hydrocephalus – Magnetic resonance imaging – Professions – Walking


1. Mori E, Ishikawa M, Kato T, Kazui H, Miyake H, Miyajima M, et al. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neuorol Med Chir. 2012;52:775–809.

2. Relkin N, Marmarou A, Klinge P, Bergsneider M Black PM. Diagnosing idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:S4–S16. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000168185.29659.c5 16160425

3. Stolze H, Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Drucke H, Johnk K, Illert M, Deuschl G. Comparative analysis of the gait disorder of normal pressure hydrocephalus and Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001:70;289–297 doi: 10.1136/jnnp.70.3.289 11181848

4. Marmarou A, Young HF, Aygok GA, Sawauchi S, Tsuji O, Yamamoto T, et al. Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective study in 151 patients. J Neurosurg. 2005;102:987–997. doi: 10.3171/jns.2005.102.6.0987 16028756

5. Souza RKM, Rocha SFBD, Martins RT, Kowacs PA, Ramina R. Gait in normal pressure hydrocephalus: characteristics and effects of the CSF tap test. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2018;76:324–331. doi: 10.1590/0004-282X20180037 29898079

6. Williams M, Thomas G, de Lateur B, Imteyaz H, Rose J, Shore W, et al. Objective assessment of gait in normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87:39–45. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31815b6461 17993991

7. Ishikawa M, Yamada S, Yamamoto K, Aoyagi K. Gait analysis in a component timed-up-and-go test using a smartphone application. J Neurol Sci. 2019;398:45–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2019.01.023 30682520

8. Yamada S, Aoyagi Y, Yamamoto K, Ishikawa M. Quantitative evaluation of gait disturbance on an instrumented timed up-and-go test. Aging Dis. 2019, 1;10:23–36 doi: 10.14336/AD.2018.0426 30705765

9. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8:23–34. 22833776

10. Vanbelle S, Albert A. Agreement between two independent groups of raters. Psychometrika. 2009;74:477–491.

11. Kubo Y, Kazui H, Yoshida T, Kito Y, Kimura N, Tokunaga H, et al. Validation of grading scale for evaluating symptoms of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2008;25:37–45. doi: 10.1159/000111149 18025828

12. Lo Martire R. Reliability coefficients. Ver. 1.3.1. 2017. Available from

13. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004.

14. MacGregor-Fors I, Payton ME. Contrasting diversity values: statistical inferences based on overlapping confidence intervals. PLoS One. 2013;8:e-56794.

15. Krippendorff K. Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Penn Libraries. 2011. Available from

16. Prince M. Does active learning works? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93:223–231

17. Belić M, Bobić V, Badža M, Šolaja N, Đurić-Jovičić M, Kostić VS. Artificial intelligence for assisting diagnostics and assessment of Parkinson's disease—a review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019;16;184:105442. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105442 31351213

18. Kazui H, Miyajima M, Mori E, Ishikawa M.; SINPHONI-2 investigators. Lumboperitoneal shunt surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:585–594. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00046-0 25934242

19. Ishikawa M, Yamada S, Yamamoto K. Early and delayed assessments of quantitative gait measures to improve the tap test as a predictor of shunt effectiveness in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Fluids Barriers_CNS. 2016;13:20. doi: 10.1186/s12987-016-0044-z 27876063

20. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:54–549.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden