Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) application for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Measurement of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is often considered to be an essential component of lumbar spine physiotherapy and orthopedic assessment. The measurement can be carried out through various instruments such as inclinometers, goniometers, and etc. Recent smartphones have been equipped with accelerometers and magnetometers, which, through specific software applications (apps) can be used for inclinometric functions.

Purpose

The main purpose was to investigate the reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) app (TiltMeter(©) -advanced level and inclinometer) for measuring standing lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM in asymptomatic subjects.

Design

A cross-sectional study was carried out.

Setting

This study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic located at School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Science and Health Services, Tehran, Iran.

Subjects

A convenience sample of 30 asymptomatic adults (15 males; 15 females; age range = 18-55 years) was recruited between August 2015 and December 2015.

Methods

Following a 2-minute warm-up, the subjects were asked to stand in a relaxed position and their skin was marked at the T12-L1 and S1-S2 spinal levels. From this position, they were asked to perform maximum lumbar flexion followed by maximum lumbar extension with their knees straight. Two blinded raters each used an inclinometer and the iPhone (®) app to measure lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM. A third rater read the measured angles. To calculate total lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM, the measurement from S1-S2 was subtracted from T12-L1. The second (2 hours later) and third (48 hours later) sessions were carried out in the same manner as the first session. All of the measurements were conducted 3 times and the mean value of 3 repetitions for each measurement was used for analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models (3, k) and (2, k) were used to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish concurrent validity of the iPhone(®) app. Furthermore, minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was computed as 1.96 × standard error of measurement × [Formula: see text].

Results

Good to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were demonstrated for both the gravity-based inclinometer with ICC values of ?0.84 and ?0.77 and the iPhone(®) app with ICC values of ?0.85 and ?0.85, respectively. The MDC95 ranged from 5.82°to 8.18°for the intra-rater analysis and from 7.38°to 8.66° for the inter-rater analysis. The concurrent validity for flexion and extension between the 2 instruments was 0.85 and 0.91, respectively.

Conclusions

The iPhone(®)app possesses good to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. It seems that the iPhone(®) app can be used for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM.

Level of evidence

IIb.

SUBMITTER: Pourahmadi MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5012335 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) application for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion.

Pourahmadi Mohammad Reza MR Taghipour Morteza M Jannati Elham E Mohseni-Bandpei Mohammad Ali MA Ebrahimi Takamjani Ismail I Rajabzadeh Fatemeh F

PeerJ 20160823

<h4>Background</h4>Measurement of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is often considered to be an essential component of lumbar spine physiotherapy and orthopedic assessment. The measurement can be carried out through various instruments such as inclinometers, goniometers, and etc. Recent smartphones have been equipped with accelerometers and magnetometers, which, through specific software applications (apps) can be used for inclinometric functions.<h4>Purpose</h4>The main purpose was to investi ...[more]

PMID: 27635328

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral water-based sports (swimming, surfing and stand up paddle boarding) require adequate thoracic mobility (specifically rotation) in order to perform the appropriate activity requirements. The measurement of thoracic spine rotation is problematic for clinicians due to a lack of convenient and reliable measurement techniques. More recently, smartphones have been used to quantify movement in various joints in the body; however, there appears to be a paucity of research using smartphones to assess thoracic spine movement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the reliability (intra and inter rater) and validity of the iPhone® app (Compass) when assessing thoracic spine rotation ROM in healthy individuals.MethodsA total of thirty participants were recruited for this study. Thoracic spine rotation ROM was measured using both the current clinical gold standard, a universal goniometer (UG) and the Smart Phone Compass app. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was determined with a Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Validation of the Compass app in comparison to the UG was measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient and levels of agreement were identified with Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement.ResultsBoth the UG and Compass app measurements both had excellent reproducibility for intra-rater (ICC 0.94-0.98) and inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.72-0.89). However, the Compass app measurements had higher intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96 - 0.98; 95% CI [0.93-0.99]; vs. ICC = 0.94 - 0.98; 95% CI [0.88-0.99]) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 - 0.89; 95% CI [0.74-0.95] vs. ICC = 0.72 - 0.82; 95% CI [0.21-0.94]). A strong and significant correlation was found between the UG and the Compass app, demonstrating good concurrent validity (r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Levels of agreement between the two devices were 24.8° (LoA -9.5°, +15.3°). The UG was found to consistently measure higher values than the compass app (mean difference 2.8°, P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study reveals that the iPhone® app (Compass) is a reliable tool for measuring thoracic spine rotation which produces greater reproducibility of measurements both within and between raters than a UG. As a significant positive correlation exists between the Compass app and UG, this supports the use of either device in clinical practice as a reliable and valid tool to measure thoracic rotation. Considering the levels of agreement are clinically unacceptable, the devices should not be used interchangeably for initial and follow up measurements.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physiological motion of the lumbar spine is a subject of interest for musculoskeletal health care professionals, as abnormal motion is believed to be related to lumbar conditions and complaints. Many researchers have described ranges of motion for the lumbar spine, but only a few have mentioned specific motion patterns of each individual segment during flexion and extension. These motion patterns mostly comprise the sequence of segmental initiation in sagittal rotation. However, an adequate definition of physiological motion of the lumbar spine is still lacking. The reason for this is the reporting of different ranges of motion and sequences of segmental initiation in previous studies. Furthermore, due to insufficient fields of view, none of these papers have reported on maximum flexion and extension motion patterns of L1 to S1. In the lower cervical spine, a consistent pattern of segmental contributions was recently described. In order to understand physiological motion of the lumbar spine, it is necessary to systematically study motion patterns, including the sequence of segmental contribution, of vertebrae L1 to S1 in healthy individuals during maximum flexion and extension. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to define the lumbar spines' physiological motion pattern of vertebrae L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1 by determining the sequence of segmental contribution and the sequence of segmental initiation of motion in sagittal rotation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. The secondary endpoint will be exploring the possibility of analyzing the intervertebral horizontal and vertical translation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. METHODS:Cinematographic recordings will be performed in 11 healthy male participants, aged 18-25 years, without a history of spine problems. Cinematographic flexion and extension recordings will be made at two time points with a minimum 2-week interval in between. RESULTS:The study has been approved by the local institutional medical ethical committee (Medical Research Ethics Committee of Zuyderland and Zuyd University of applied sciences) on September 24, 2018. Inclusion of participants will be completed in 2020. CONCLUSIONS:If successful, these physiological motion patterns can be compared with motion patterns of patients with lumbar conditions before or after surgery. Ultimately, researchers may be able to determine differences in biomechanics that can potentially be linked to physical complaints like low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03737227; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03737227. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/14741.

Project description:BackgroundThe etiology of adjacent-segment disease following cervical spine arthrodesis remains controversial. The objective of the current study was to evaluate cervical intervertebral range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension in patients who had undergone a single-level arthrodesis and in asymptomatic control subjects.MethodsTen patients who had undergone a single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis and twenty asymptomatic control subjects performed continuous full range-of-motion flexion-extension while biplane radiographs were collected at thirty images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position on each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. Six-degrees-of-freedom kinematics between adjacent vertebrae were calculated throughout the entire flexion-extension movement cycle over multiple trials for each participant. Cervical kinematics were also calculated from images collected during static full flexion and static full extension.ResultsThe C4/C5 motion segment moved through a larger extension range of motion and a smaller flexion range of motion in the subjects with the arthrodesis than in the controls. The extension difference between the arthrodesis and control groups was 3.8° (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.9° to 6.6°; p = 0.011) and the flexion difference was -2.9° (95% CI, -5.3° to -0.5°; p = 0.019). Adjacent-segment posterior translation was greater in the arthrodesis group than in the controls, with a C4/C5 difference of 0.8 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.6 mm) and a C6/C7 difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8 mm; p = 0.016). Translation range of motion and rotation range of motion were consistently larger when measured on images collected during dynamic functional movement as opposed to images collected at static full flexion or full extension. The upper 95% CI limit for anterior-posterior translation range of motion was 3.45 mm at C3/C4 and C4/C5, but only 2.3 mm at C6/C7.ConclusionsC5/C6 arthrodesis does not affect the total range of motion in adjacent vertebral segments, but it does alter the distribution of adjacent-segment motion toward more extension and less flexion superior to the arthrodesis and more posterior translation superior and inferior to the arthrodesis during in vivo functional loading. Range of motion measured from static full-flexion and full-extension images underestimates dynamic range of motion. Clinical evaluation of excessive anterior-posterior translation should take into account the cervical vertebral level.

Project description:A longitudinal study using biplane radiography to measure in vivo intervertebral range of motion (ROM) during dynamic flexion/extension, and rotation.To longitudinally compare intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in asymptomatic control subjects and single-level arthrodesis patients.In vitro studies consistently report that adjacent segment maximal ROM increases superior and inferior to cervical arthrodesis. Previous in vivo results have been conflicting, indicating that maximal ROM may or may not increase superior and/or inferior to the arthrodesis. There are no previous reports of midrange motion in arthrodesis patients and similar-aged controls.Eight single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis patients (tested 7?±?1 months and 28?±?6 months postsurgery) and six asymptomatic control subjects (tested twice, 58?±?6 months apart) performed dynamic full ROM flexion/extension and axial rotation whereas biplane radiographs were collected at 30?images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position from each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. The intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in flexion/extension, rotation, lateral bending, and anterior-posterior translation were compared between test dates and between groups.Adjacent segment maximal ROM did not increase over time during flexion/extension, or rotation movements. Adjacent segment maximal rotational ROM was not significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls. C4/C5 adjacent segment rotation during the midrange of head motion and maximal anterior-posterior translation were significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in the corresponding motion segment in controls on the second test date.C5/C6 arthrodesis appears to significantly affect midrange, but not end-range, adjacent segment motions. The effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segment motion may be best evaluated by longitudinal studies that compare maximal and midrange adjacent segment motion to corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls to determine if the adjacent segment motion is truly excessive.3.

Project description:A precise and comprehensive definition of "normal" in vivo cervical kinematics does not exist due to high intersubject variability and the absence of midrange kinematic data. In vitro test protocols and finite element models that are validated using only end range of motion data may not accurately reproduce continuous in vivo motion.The primary objective of this study was to precisely quantify cervical spine intervertebral kinematics during continuous, functional flexion-extension in asymptomatic subjects. The advantages of assessing continuous intervertebral kinematics were demonstrated by comparing asymptomatic controls with patients with single-level anterior arthrodesis.Cervical spine kinematics were determined during continuous in vivo flexion-extension in a clinically relevant age group of asymptomatic controls and a group of patients with C5-C6 arthrodesis.The patient sample consisted of 6 patients with single-level (C5-C6) anterior arthrodesis (average age: 48.8±6.9 years; 1 male, 5 female; 7.6±1.2 months postsurgery) and 18 asymptomatic control subjects of similar age (average age: 45.6±5.8 years; 5 male, 13 female).Outcome measures included the physiologic measure of continuous kinematic motion paths at each cervical motion segment (C2-C7) during flexion-extension.Participants performed flexion-extension while biplane radiographs were collected at 30 images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral positions with submillimeter accuracy. Continuous flexion-extension rotation and anterior-posterior translation motion paths were adjusted for disc height and static orientation of each corresponding motion segment.Intersubject variability in flexion-extension angle was decreased 15% to 46% and intersubject variability in anterior-posterior translation was reduced 14% to 33% after adjusting for disc height and static orientation angle. Average intersubject variability in continuous motion paths was 1.9° in flexion-extension and 0.6 mm in translation. Third-order polynomial equations were determined to precisely describe the continuous flexion-extension and anterior-posterior translation motion path at each motion segment (all R2>0.99).A significant portion of the intersubject variability in cervical kinematics can be explained by the disc height and the static orientation of each motion segment. Clinically relevant information may be gained by assessing intervertebral kinematics during continuous functional movement rather than at static, end range of motion positions. The fidelity of in vitro cervical spine mechanical testing protocols may be evaluated by comparing in vitro kinematics to the continuous motion paths presented.

Project description:PurposeTo characterize the inter- and intraobserver variability of qualitative, non-disk contour degenerative findings of the lumbar spine at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Materials and methodsThe case accrual method used to perform this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was the random selection of 111 interpretable MR examination cases of subjects from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. The subjects were aged 18-87 years (mean, 53 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]). Four independent readers rated the cases according to defined criteria. A subsample of 40 MR examination cases was selected for reevaluation at least 1 month later. The following findings were assessed: spondylolisthesis, disk degeneration, marrow endplate abnormality (Modic changes), posterior anular hyperintense zone (HIZ), and facet arthropathy. Inter- and intraobserver agreement in rating the data was summarized by using weighted kappa statistics.ResultsInterobserver agreement was good (kappa = 0.66) in rating disk degeneration and moderate in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.55), Modic changes (kappa = 0.59), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.54), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.44). Interobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate: kappa Values were 0.43 for determining superior anteroposterior extent, 0.47 for determining superior craniocaudal extent, 0.57 for determining inferior anteroposterior extent, and 0.48 for determining inferior craniocaudal extent. Intraobserver agreement was good in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.66), disk degeneration (kappa = 0.74), Modic changes (kappa = 0.64), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.69), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.67). Intraobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate, with kappa values of 0.54 for superior anteroposterior, 0.60 for inferior anteroposterior, 0.50 for superior craniocaudal, and 0.60 for inferior craniocaudal extent determinations.ConclusionThe interpretation of general lumbar spine MR characteristics has sufficient reliability to warrant the further evaluation of these features as potential prognostic indicators.

Project description:BackgroundElbow and wrist chronic conditions are very common among musculoskeletal problems. These painful conditions affect muscle function, which ultimately leads to a decrease in the joint's Range Of Motion (ROM). Due to their portability and ease of use, goniometers are still the most widespread tool for measuring ROM. Inertial sensors are emerging as a digital, low-cost and accurate alternative. However, whereas inertial sensors are commonly used in research studies, due to the lack of information about their validity and reliability, they are not widely used in the clinical practice. The goal of this study is to assess the validity and intra-inter-rater reliability of inertial sensors for measuring active ROM of the elbow and wrist.Materials and methodsMeasures were taken simultaneously with inertial sensors (Werium™ system) and a universal goniometer. The process involved two physiotherapists ("rater A" and "rater B") and an engineer responsible for the technical issues. Twenty-nine asymptomatic subjects were assessed individually in two sessions separated by 48 h. The procedure was repeated by rater A followed by rater B with random order. Three repetitions of each active movement (elbow flexion, pronation, and supination; and wrist flexion, extension, radial deviation and ulnar deviation) were executed starting from the neutral position until the ROM end-feel; that is, until ROM reached its maximum due to be stopped by the anatomy. The coefficient of determination (r 2) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were calculated to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. The Standard Error of the Measurement and the Minimum Detectable Change and a Bland-Altman plots were also calculated.ResultsSimilar ROM values when measured with both instruments were obtained for the elbow (maximum difference of 3° for all the movements) and wrist (maximum difference of 1° for all the movements). These values were within the normal range when compared to literature studies. The concurrent validity analysis for all the movements yielded ICC values ≥0.78 for the elbow and ≥0.95 for the wrist. Concerning reliability, the ICC values denoted a high reliability of inertial sensors for all the different movements. In the case of the elbow, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability ICC values range from 0.83 to 0.96 and from 0.94 to 0.97, respectively. Intra-rater analysis of the wrist yielded ICC values between 0.81 and 0.93, while the ICC values for the inter-rater analysis range from 0.93 to 0.99.ConclusionsInertial sensors are a valid and reliable tool for measuring elbow and wrist active ROM. Particularly noteworthy is their high inter-rater reliability, often questioned in measurement tools. The lowest reliability is observed in elbow prono-supination, probably due to skin artifacts. Based on these results and their advantages, inertial sensors can be considered a valid assessment tool for wrist and elbow ROM.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinimetric properties of knee goniometry are essential to appreciate in light of its extensive use in the orthopaedic and rehabilitative communities. Intra-observer reliability is thought to be satisfactory, but the validity and inter-rater reliability of knee goniometry often demonstrate unacceptable levels of variation. This study tests the validity and reliability of measuring knee range of motion using goniometry and photographic records.MethodsDesignMethodology study assessing the validity and reliability of one method ('Marker Method') which uses a skin marker over the greater trochanter and another method ('Line of Femur Method') which requires estimation of the line of femur.SettingRadiology and orthopaedic departments of two teaching hospitals.Participants31 volunteers (13 arthritic and 18 healthy subjects). Knee range of motion was measured radiographically and photographically using a goniometer. Three assessors were assessed for reliability and validity.Main outcomesAgreement between methods and within raters was assessed using concordance correlation coefficient (CCCs). Agreement between raters was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). 95% limits of agreement for the mean difference for all paired comparisons were computed.ResultsValidity (referenced to radiographs): Each method for all 3 raters yielded very high CCCs for flexion (0.975 to 0.988), and moderate to substantial CCCs for extension angles (0.478 to 0.678). The mean differences and 95% limits of agreement were narrower for flexion than they were for extension. Intra-rater reliability: For flexion and extension, very high CCCs were attained for all 3 raters for both methods with slightly greater CCCs seen for flexion (CCCs varied from 0.981 to 0.998). Inter-rater reliability: For both methods, very high ICCs (min to max: 0.891 to 0.995) were obtained for flexion and extension. Slightly higher coefficients were obtained for flexion compared to extension, and with the Marker compared to the Line of Femur Method. For intra- and inter-rater reliability, the mean differences (within 2 degrees) and 95% limits of agreement (within 5 degrees) were generally clinically acceptable for both methods.ConclusionPhotography potentially offers a superior method of measurement over standard goniometry as visualising the centre of the knee is simplified in a two-dimensional plane and the permanent record provides greater assessor transparency as well as opportunity to confer. The Marker and Line of Femur Methods have moderate to substantial validity, but the inter- and intra-rater repeatability for trained observers are excellent with both methods yielding small mean differences with narrow limits of agreement. The Line of Femur Method offers the added advantage that it does not rely on inter-clinician consistency in identifying the greater trochanter.

Project description:BACKGROUND:New reliable devices for range of motion (ROM) measures in older adults are necessary to improve knowledge about the functional capability in this population. Dorsiflexion ROM limitation is associated with ankle injuries, foot pain, lower limb disorders, loss of balance, gait control disorders and fall risk in older adults. The aim of the present study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Leg Motion device for measuring ankle dorsiflexion ROM in older adults. METHODS:Adescriptive repeated-measures study was designed to test the reliability of Leg Motion in thirty-three healthy elderly patients older than 65 years. The subjects had to meet the following inclusion and exclusion criteria in their medical records: older than 65 years; no lower extremity injury for at least one year prior to evaluation (meniscopathy, or fractures) and any chronic injuries (e.g., osteoarthritis); no previous hip, knee or ankle surgery; no neuropathic alterations and no cognitive conditions (e.g., Alzheimer's disease or dementia). Participants were recruited through the person responsible for the physiotherapist area from a nursing center. The subjects were evaluated in two different sessions at the same time of day, and there was a break of two weeks between sessions. To test the validity of the Leg Motion system, the participants were measured in a weight-bearing lunge position using a classic goniometer with 1° increments, a smartphone with an inclinometer standard app (iPhone 5S®) with 1° increments and a measuring tape that could measure 0.1 cm. All testing was performed while the patients were barefoot. The researcher had ten years of experience as a physiotherapist using goniometer, tape measure and inclinometer devices. RESULTS:Mean values and standard deviations were as follows: Leg Motion (right 5.15 ± 3.08; left 5.19 ± 2.98), tape measure (right 5.12 ± 3.08; left 5.12 ± 2.80), goniometer (right 45.87° ± 4.98; left 44.50° ± 5.54) and inclinometer app (right 46.53° ± 4.79; left 45.27° ± 5.19). The paired t-test showed no significant differences between the limbs or between the test and re-test values. The test re-test reliability results for Leg Motion were as follows: the standard error of the measurement ranged from 0.29 to 0.43 cm, the minimal detectable difference ranged from 0.79 to 1.19 cm, and the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) values ranged from 0.97 to 0.98. CONCLUSIONS:The results of the present study indicated that the Leg Motion device is a valid, reliable, accessible and portable tool as an alternative to the classic weight-bearing lunge test for measuring ankle dorsiflexion ROM in older adults.

Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) application for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion.

Background

Purpose

Design

Setting

Subjects

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

Reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) application for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets