Physiological and biomechanical comparison of overground, treadmill, and ergometer handrim wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied subjects under standardized conditions

de Klerk, Rick; Velhorst, Vera; Veeger, Dirkjan (H.E.J.); van der Woude, Lucas H. V.; Vegter, Riemer J. K.

doi:10.1186/s12984-020-00767-2

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Table 1 Physiological and biomechanical characteristics for overground (OG), treadmill (TM), and ergometer (WE) wheelchair propulsion (n = 17)

From: Physiological and biomechanical comparison of overground, treadmill, and ergometer handrim wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied subjects under standardized conditions

Variable		Mean (± SD)	Contrast	ICC (95% CI)^a	p-value^b	p-value	Effect size
Experimental
Power output (W)	OG TM WE	8.12 (1.41) 7.84 (1.92) 8.65 (2.24)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	n.s.^e 0.57 (0.15–0.82) 0.52 (0.10–0.79)	0.10 0.01 0.00	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Speed (m/s)	OG TM WE	1.12 (0.02) 1.12 (0.00) 1.14 (0.02)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	n.s.^e n.s.^e n.s.^e	0.48 0.57 0.52	0.20^g 0.02^g 0.03^g	0.7ⁱ − 0.6ⁱ
Physiological
Heart rate (bpm)^h	OG TM WE	94.49 (11.80) 89.30 (11.31) 92.24 (13.16)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.86 (0.05–0.97) 0.91 (0.73–0.97) 0.88 (0.64–0.96)	0.00 0.13 0.07	0.00^c 0.27^c 0.07^c	− 1.4^d
Energy expenditure (W)	OG TM WE	208.88 (50.00) 195.97 (40.08) 206.31 (42.47)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.74 (0.42–0.90) 0.68 (0.31–0.87) 0.78 (0.49–0.91)	0.00 0.00 0.00	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Gross mechanical efficiency (%)	OG TM WE	4.07 (1.07) 4.12 (1.10) 4.28 (1.15)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.75 (0.44–0.90) 0.44 (0.00–0.75) 0.55 (0.11–0.81)	0.00 0.03 0.01	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Spatiotemporal
Push time (s)	OG TM WE	0.35 (0.06) 0.35 (0.07) 0.32 (0.07)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.85 (0.64–0.94) 0.80 (0.34–0.93) 0.83 (0.35–0.95)	0.00 0.00 0.00	0.96^c 0.00^c 0.00^c	− 0.8^d 0.8^d
Cycle time (s)	OG TM WE	1.43 (0.47) 1.31 (0.44) 1.28 (0.55)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.85 (0.60–0.95) 0.79 (0.49–0.92) 0.75 (0.44–0.90)	0.00 0.00 0.00	0.02^g 0.01^g 0.39^g	0.6ⁱ 0.8ⁱ
Contact angle (deg)	OG TM WE	71.43 (12.34) 72.28 (13.64) 68.74 (14.01)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.86 (0.66–0.95) 0.87 (0.60–0.95) 0.87 (0.60–0.95)	0.00 0.00 0.00	0.83^c 0.00^c 0.00^c	− 1.2^d 0.9^d
Kinetics
Fraction of effective force (%)	OG TM WE	69.28 (10.33) 69.67 (9.86) 73.38 (8.11)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.92 (0.81–0.97) 0.71 (0.29–0.89) 0.69 (0.30–0.88)	0.00 0.00 0.00	0.69^c 0.02^c 0.03^c	0.6^d − 0.7^d
Mean torque per push (Nm)	OG TM WE	4.63 (1.06) 4.34 (1.33) 4.65 (1.33)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.76 (0.47–0.91) 0.81 (0.55–0.93) 0.81 (0.55–0.93)	0.00 0.00 0.00	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Max torque per push (Nm)	OG TM WE	7.83 (2.02) 7.43 (2.41) 8.25 (2.73)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.81 (0.57–0.93) 0.82 (0.57–0.93) 0.77 (0.46–0.91)	0.00 0.00 0.00	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Work per push (J)	OG TM WE	5.94 (1.94) 5.61 (2.17) 5.64 (2.20)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	0.82 (0.57–0.93) 0.85 (0.63–0.94) 0.80 (0.53–0.92)	0.00 0.00 0.00	n.s.^f n.s.^f n.s.^f
Negative work per cycle (J)	OG TM WE	− 1.44 (0.51) − 0.50 (0.20) − 0.42 (0.21)	OG vs. TM OG vs. WE TM vs. WE	n.s.^e n.s.^e 0.52 (0.10–0.79)	0.23 0.21 0.01	0.00^g 0.00^g 0.07^g	− 1.0ⁱ − 1.0ⁱ

^aTwo-way random-effects model, single rater, absolute agreement, ≥ good values are bold
^bp-values for the intraclass-correlations, significant results are bold
^cPaired-comparison with t-test without correction, significant results are bold
^dEffect size: Cohen’s d
^eNon-significant intraclass-correlation
^fNon-significant main effect
^gWilcoxon signed-rank test
^hn = 14
ⁱRank-biserial correlation

Back to article page

ISSN: 1743-0003

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com