Table 1.
Clinical summary of participants.
Fig 1.
Ratings by seven raters on representative gait patterns and severity of gait disturbance in the first assessment in the homogeneous group.
Each grade by different raters was plotted not to overlap. A: Wide-based gait, B: short-stepped gait, C: festination, D: severity on the gait domain of the iNPH grading scale.
Table 2.
Krippendorff alpha coefficients and 84% CIs of the five groups.
Fig 2.
Krippendorff alpha in the first assessment in the homogeneous group.
Dashed line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.667, dotted line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.80, longitudinal bar: 84% confidence intervals, DR2: doctor group, PTe3: experienced physiotherapist group, PTl2: less experienced physiotherapist group, *statistically significant difference between two groups.
Fig 3.
Krippendorff alpha in the second assessment in the homogeneous group.
Dashed line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.667, dotted line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.80, longitudinal bars: confidence intervals, DR2: doctor group, PTe3: experienced physiotherapist group, PTl2: less experienced physiotherapist group, *statistically significant difference between two groups.
Fig 4.
Comparison between the first and second assessments in the homogeneous group.
Dashed line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.667, dotted line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.80, longitudinal bars: confidential intervals, DR2: doctor group, PTe3: experienced physiotherapist group, PTl2: less experienced physiotherapist group, #statistically significant difference between the first and second assessments.
Fig 5.
Comparison between the first and second assessments in the mixed group.
Dashed line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.667, dotted line: Krippendorff alpha ≥0.80, longitudinal bars: confidence intervals, DR2: doctor group, PTe3: experienced physiotherapist group, PTl2: less experienced physiotherapist group.