# Test-Retest Reliability of Kinematic Parameters of Timed Up and Go in People with Type 2 Diabetes
## 4 Discussion  
The present study aimed to evaluate the test-retest reliability of kinetic and kinematic parameters obtained from TUG in the diabetic population. The results were analysed according to the severity of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c} \hline  & **Test Measurement in Newtons** & **Test** & **Retest** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & Right forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 846.14 (212.30) & 827.06 (207.90) & 0.178  \\  & Right forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 820.03 (187.24) & 809.08 (174.89) & 0.527  \\ (\(n=22\)) & Right heel forces (before reaching the mark) & 860.34 (204.46) & 877.55 (202.41) & 0.408  \\  & Right heel forces (after reaching the mark) & 935.64 (208.33) & 938.26 (211.80) & 0.961  \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & Right forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 808.28 (93.51) & 820.69 (110.33) & 0.136  \\  & Right forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 771.20 (112.84) & 782.47 (102.16) & 0.388  \\  & Right heel forces (before reaching the mark) & 817.53 (163.63) & 847.94 (150.04) & 0.099  \\  & Right heel forces (after reaching the mark) & 847.34 (161.18) & 886.09 (160.69) & 0.034  \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: \(Cont\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline  & **Test Measurement in Newtons** & **ICC (695\% CD)** & **SEM (N)** & **SEM (\%)** & **SRD (N)** & **SRD (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & Right forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.937 (0.894-0.962) & 47.49 & 5.62 & 131.65 & 15.59 \\  & Left forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.944 (0.906-0.967) & 45.37 & 5.48 & 125.77 & 15.19 \\  & Right forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.955 (0.925-0.974) & 37.75 & 4.59 & 104.66 & 12.74 \\  & Left forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.942 (0.903-0.966) & 43.23 & 5.61 & 119.85 & 15.55 \\  & Right head forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.946 (0.910-0.968) & 47.51 & 332.25 & 14.82 \\  & Left heel forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.941 (0.901-0.965) & 52.87 & 5.62 & 146.57 & 15.59 \\  & Right heel forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.935 (0.892-0.961) & 55.86 & 5.94 & 154.86 & 16.48 \\  & Left heel forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.955 (0.925-0.974) & 45.03 & 4.78 & 124.82 & 13.27 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & Right forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.952 (0.888-0.980) & 45.35 & 5.22 & 125.71 & 14.48 \\  & Left forefoot forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.937 (0.854-0.973) & 51.84 & 5.96 & 143.69 & 16.54 \\  & Right forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.968 (0.925-0.987) & 36.59 & 4.29 & 101.44 & 11.89 \\  & Left forefoot forces (after reaching the mark) & 0.973 (0.936-0.989) & 32.34 & 3.94 & 89.66 & 10.92 \\  & Right heel forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.947 (0.878-0.978) & 51.52 & 5.43 & 142.81 & 15.06 \\  & Left heel forces (before reaching the mark) & 0.959 (0.903-0.983) & 46.77 & 4.68 & 129.64 & 12.97 \\  & Right heel forces (after reaching the mark)  
neuropathy. The main finding was that almost each variable achieved good (ICC between 0.70 and 0.90) or excellent (>0.90) reliability considering the classification by [PERSON] et al. [20]. The reliability of TUG seemed to be conditioned by the severity of neuropathy since the ICC was higher than 0.90 (excellent) for participants with moderate neuropathy and patients with normal foot vibration perception, but just good (0.70 to 0.90) for patients with severe neuropathy. Therefore, although the TUG is reliable in T2 DM patients, changes in the duration of the phases (single and double support) must be taken with caution since the %SEM may be relatively high in some cases (over 10%). Furthermore, we can observe how the SRD of the required time to complete the TUG was higher in patients with severe neuropathy. These results must be considered by clinicians and researchers in order to interpret their results when using TUG in the T2 DM population.