Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Measuring joint range of motion is an important skill for many allied health professionals. While the Universal Goniometer is the most commonly utilised clinical tool for measuring joint range of motion, the evolution of smartphone technology and applications (apps) provides the clinician with more measurement options. However, the reliability and validity of these smartphones and apps is still somewhat uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the intra- and inter-rater reliability and validity of smartphones and apps to measure joint range of motion. Eligible studies were published in English peer-reviewed journals with full text available, involving the assessment of reliability and/or validity of a non-videographic smartphone app to measure joint range of motion in participants >18 years old. An electronic search using PubMed, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTSDiscus was performed. The risk of bias was assessed using a standardised appraisal tool. Twenty-three of the eligible 25 studies exceeded the minimum 60% score to be classified as a low risk of bias, although 3 of the 13 criteria were not achieved in >50% of the studies. Most of the studies demonstrated adequate intra-rater or inter-rater reliability and/or validity for >50% of the range of motion tests across all joints assessed. However, this level of evidence appeared weaker for absolute (e.g. mean difference ± limit of agreement, minimal detectable change) than relative (e.g. intraclass correlation, correlation) measures; and for spinal rotation than spinal extension, flexion and lateral flexion. Our results provide clinicians with sufficient evidence to support the use of smartphones and apps in place of goniometers to measure joint motion. Future research should address some methodological limitations of the literature, especially including the inclusion of absolute and not just relative reliability and validity statistics.

SUBMITTER: Keogh JWL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6505893 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

Keogh Justin W L JWL Cox Alistair A Anderson Sarah S Liew Bernard B Olsen Alicia A Schram Ben B Furness James J

PloS one 20190508 5

Measuring joint range of motion is an important skill for many allied health professionals. While the Universal Goniometer is the most commonly utilised clinical tool for measuring joint range of motion, the evolution of smartphone technology and applications (apps) provides the clinician with more measurement options. However, the reliability and validity of these smartphones and apps is still somewhat uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the in ...[more]

PMID: 31067247

Similar Datasets

Project description:We analyzed the inter- and intra-examiner reliability of Werium inertial sensors and the cervical range of motion (CROM) instrument for the measurement of active CROM (AcROM) in patients with primary headache. Another objective is to analyze the validity of the inertial sensors (Werium). The literature has reported symptomatology features in patients diagnosed with primary headache similar to that of patients with cervicogenic headache. The International Classification of Headache (ICHD-III) established the presence of reduced AcROM as a diagnostic criterion for cervicogenic headache. Several instruments are used for this measurement, with limitations in their applicability in daily clinical practice. A prospective longitudinal repeated measures study was conducted to assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability and validity of Werium inertial sensors in 20 adults with chronic primary headache. For the inter-rater analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were above 0.75 for all movements, indicating a good level of reliability. For the intra-rater results, the ICC values obtained by the Werium inertial sensors for all cervical movements were good for rater A (ICC >0.80) and rater B (ICC >0.84). For the validity, the ICCs obtained by the Werium inertial sensors compared with the CROM instrument for all cervical movements were moderate for both raters (ICC > 0.70, respectively). Values obtained in the standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change at 90% and limits of agreement also indicated good agreement. Werium inertial sensors have shown good to excellent reliability results, both intra- and inter-examiner (ICC > 0.75). Likewise, when the sensors were compared with another validated instrument (CROM device) they obtained high reliability results (ICC > 0.70). These results plus its relatively low price and ease of use allow us to recommend it in daily clinical practice to measure AcROM in patients with chronic primary headache.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

Publications

Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets