Table 3

Minimum required reporting sheet for standardised and transparent data sharing

Target populationDescriptionReporting
Sampling methodRandom, convenient, etc.
Distribution of sex♂=n/♀=n
AgeMean±SD and range (years)
BMIMean±SD and range (kg/m²)
Sample sizeProvide the no and explain how the sample size was chosen
Health condition (where relevant)Provide detailed description of cohort with atypical gait characteristics
Criterion measure
Video camera with multiple observer (≥2) or equivalent*Video: Model and brand
OR
Equivalent: Model, brand and published measurement error
PlacementActual placement of camera or equivalent
Index device
PlacementManufacturer’s instructions and actual placement
Testing protocol
Type of protocolLaboratory, semifree-living and/or free-living
Type of trialList the components of the recommended protocol evaluated (eg, laboratory 3 min walk test, 3 min zig-zag walk test etc)
DurationDuration of each trial
Contextual factorsWhere the testing took place, weather conditions, time of year
Processing
Criterion measure processingVideo: step definition; methods for reviewing video; number of raters
OR
Equivalent: processing method for equivalent criterion
Index measure processingDetail methods if end-user data is processed (eg, excluded data etc.)
Epochs for analysisIn seconds (where relevant)
Index and criterion synchronisationMethod used for synchronising step data from index and criterion measures
Statistical Analysis assessment
Mean difference or mean relative difference Bland-Altman LoADetail the LoA for each trial
Least products regression of the differences against the meansDetail the presence of any systematic or proportional bias for each trial
MAPEDetail the MAPE for each trial
Intraclass correlation coefficientDetail the intra-class correlation coefficient and 95% CI for the 2×1 min treadmill test
  • *Any device or method which has been demonstrated to possess less than 5% measurement error using the laboratory, semi free-living, and free-living validation protocols detailed below. Additionally, this should be specific to the population of interest. For the case of free-living validation, the INTERLIVE network is aware that video recording and ‘manual’ step counting by two independent evaluators over ≥24 hours recording period (a 1-week recording period (minimum 3–4 complete days) is optimal to capture interday and weekday-weekend variation) is extremely costly in time and resources and therefore likely not feasible for many. Therefore, we feel that this field needs to move forward, developing and validating alternative methods such as insole sensors that after validation and cross-validation could be used as a new and more feasible gold-standard method for free-living validation protocols.

  • BMI, body mass index; INTERLIVE®, Intelligent Health and Well-Being Network of Physical Activity Assessment; LoA, limits of agreement; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error.;