The effects of actual and simulated visual impairments on the walking gait: A systematic review.

IF 1.4 3区 医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Michael Fish, Sean Hudson, Julia Bader, Rebekka Heitmar, Liane B Azevedo
{"title":"The effects of actual and simulated visual impairments on the walking gait: A systematic review.","authors":"Michael Fish, Sean Hudson, Julia Bader, Rebekka Heitmar, Liane B Azevedo","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Visual impairments (VI) affect over 2.2 billion people worldwide and are linked to an increased risk of falls. To date, no reviews have systematically synthesised evidence for the effect of VI on whole body gait biomechanics, to better understand how different types of VI might affect gait.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search up to July 2025 was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Eligible studies included adults, a diagnosed or simulated VI, a non-visually impaired comparator, and reported any of the following gait parameters: 1) Spatio-temporal; 2) Kinetics; 3) Kinematics; and 4) Muscle activity. Study quality was evaluated using quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS) and a narrative synthesis undertaken (SWiM).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Forty-four studies were included. Twenty-seven examined straight-line level walking, 12 examined obstacle walking and five examined both straight-line level and obstacle walking. Of those examining straight-line level walking, 12 simulated VI and 15 explored diagnosed VI's. In the obstacle walking literature, nine simulated VI and six included participants with diagnosed VI's. Inconsistent findings were common across studies, with most reporting either a more cautious gait strategy with VI, or no difference between VI and non-VI conditions.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Differences between studies are likely explained by variation in gait measurement, non-standard VI simulation methods, and lack of detail surrounding the severity of diagnosis. This hinders provision of clinical recommendations based on existing evidence. We have proposed minimum reporting requirements around acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual field method/thresholds; simulation validation to facilitate clinical utilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":"137 ","pages":"106865"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106865","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Visual impairments (VI) affect over 2.2 billion people worldwide and are linked to an increased risk of falls. To date, no reviews have systematically synthesised evidence for the effect of VI on whole body gait biomechanics, to better understand how different types of VI might affect gait.

Methods: A systematic search up to July 2025 was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Eligible studies included adults, a diagnosed or simulated VI, a non-visually impaired comparator, and reported any of the following gait parameters: 1) Spatio-temporal; 2) Kinetics; 3) Kinematics; and 4) Muscle activity. Study quality was evaluated using quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS) and a narrative synthesis undertaken (SWiM).

Findings: Forty-four studies were included. Twenty-seven examined straight-line level walking, 12 examined obstacle walking and five examined both straight-line level and obstacle walking. Of those examining straight-line level walking, 12 simulated VI and 15 explored diagnosed VI's. In the obstacle walking literature, nine simulated VI and six included participants with diagnosed VI's. Inconsistent findings were common across studies, with most reporting either a more cautious gait strategy with VI, or no difference between VI and non-VI conditions.

Interpretation: Differences between studies are likely explained by variation in gait measurement, non-standard VI simulation methods, and lack of detail surrounding the severity of diagnosis. This hinders provision of clinical recommendations based on existing evidence. We have proposed minimum reporting requirements around acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual field method/thresholds; simulation validation to facilitate clinical utilisation.

实际和模拟视觉障碍对步行步态的影响:系统综述。
背景:视力障碍(VI)影响着全球超过22亿人,并与跌倒风险增加有关。到目前为止,还没有综述系统地综合了VI对全身步态生物力学影响的证据,以更好地了解不同类型的VI如何影响步态。方法:通过PubMed (MEDLINE)、Scopus、Web of Science、ERIC等数据库进行系统检索,检索时间截止到2025年7月。符合条件的研究包括成人,诊断或模拟的VI,非视障比较者,并报告以下任何步态参数:1)时空;2)动力学;3)运动学;4)肌肉活动。采用不同研究质量评估(QuADS)和叙事综合评估(SWiM)对研究质量进行评估。结果:纳入44项研究。27人参加了直线竞走考试,12人参加了障碍竞走考试,5人同时参加了直线竞走和障碍竞走考试。在那些检查直线水平行走的人中,12人模拟了VI, 15人探索了诊断的VI。在障碍行走的文献中,9个模拟VI, 6个包括诊断为VI的参与者。研究中普遍存在不一致的结果,大多数研究要么报告了VI患者更谨慎的步态策略,要么报告了VI与非VI之间没有差异。解释:研究之间的差异可能是由于步态测量的差异,非标准的VI模拟方法,以及缺乏诊断严重程度的细节。这阻碍了基于现有证据的临床建议的提供。我们提出了关于敏锐度、对比敏感度、视野方法/阈值的最低报告要求;模拟验证以促进临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Biomechanics
Clinical Biomechanics 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
189
审稿时长
12.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Biomechanics is an international multidisciplinary journal of biomechanics with a focus on medical and clinical applications of new knowledge in the field. The science of biomechanics helps explain the causes of cell, tissue, organ and body system disorders, and supports clinicians in the diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of treatment methods and technologies. Clinical Biomechanics aims to strengthen the links between laboratory and clinic by publishing cutting-edge biomechanics research which helps to explain the causes of injury and disease, and which provides evidence contributing to improved clinical management. A rigorous peer review system is employed and every attempt is made to process and publish top-quality papers promptly. Clinical Biomechanics explores all facets of body system, organ, tissue and cell biomechanics, with an emphasis on medical and clinical applications of the basic science aspects. The role of basic science is therefore recognized in a medical or clinical context. The readership of the journal closely reflects its multi-disciplinary contents, being a balance of scientists, engineers and clinicians. The contents are in the form of research papers, brief reports, review papers and correspondence, whilst special interest issues and supplements are published from time to time. Disciplines covered include biomechanics and mechanobiology at all scales, bioengineering and use of tissue engineering and biomaterials for clinical applications, biophysics, as well as biomechanical aspects of medical robotics, ergonomics, physical and occupational therapeutics and rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书