DIGITAL VERSUS CLASSIC GONIOMETRY IN SHOULDER MOTION EVALUATION: AN AGREEMENT PILOT STUDY

Hugo Couto Amorim, Rui Cadilha, José Santoalha, Afonso Rocha, Fernando Parada

Resumo


Purpose: Shoulder range of motion measurement is not only of diagnostic significance but is also relevant for monitoring response to therapeutic interventions. Smartphones incorporate accelerometers which enable easy multiaxial and multiangle measurements but their reliability compared to the classic goniometer remains to be established. The authors aim to ascertain the intra-rater reliability between manual and smartphone-based digital goniometry in measuring active flexion (AF) and external rotation (ER) in both standing (St) and supine (Su) positions.

 

Methods: A convenience sample of 16 healthy volunteers was selected. Measures were taken by an independent rater at two different times, a week apart. We randomized both participant’s order and measurement sequence. The rater was trained according to a predetermined measurement protocol and blinded to intermediate measurements. We evaluated agreement between methods using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), visual inspection of Bland-Altman plots and calculation of the limits of agreement.

 

Results: The intra-rater correlation was good regarding the ER-StICC 0,87 (IC 95%: 0,66-0,95), the ER-SuICC 0,92 (IC 95%: 0,80-0,97)) and the AF-StICC 0,92 (IC 95%: 0,78-0,97). The score was lower in the AF-SuICC 0,81 (IC 95%: 0,55-0,93).

 

Conclusions: There was a good intra-rater reliability between classic and digital goniometer in ER (regardless of positioning) and in standing AF. The smartphone based digital goniometer might be an easy tool to assist physical examination in healthy individuals, but its accuracy and applicability to clinical settings needs further evaluation.

 

Keywords: Arthrometry, Articular; Shoulder; Patient Positioning; Observer Variation;


Palavras-chave


Arthrometry, Articular; Shoulder; Patient Positioning; Observer Variation;

Referências


Pinto-Carral A, Fernández Villa T, Molina de la Torre A. Patient Reported Mobility: A Systematic Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016. pii: S0003-9993(16)00093-9.

Schultz J. Clinical evaluation of the shoulder. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2004;15(2):351-71.

Hayes K, Walton J, Szomor Z, Murrell G. Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder range of motion. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(4):289-94.

Kolber M, Hanney W. The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(3): 306-313.

Hirschhorn A, Lockhart J, Breckenridge J. Can a physical activity monitor provide a valid measure of arm elevation angle? A study to assess agreement between the SenseWear Mini Armband and the universal goniometer. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;3;16:46.

Kumar Y, Yen S, Tay A, Lee W, Gao F, Zhao Z, et al. Wireless wearable range-of-motion sensor system for upper and lower extremity joints: a validation study. Healthc Technol Lett. 2015;2(1):12-7.

Carey MA, Laird DE, Murray KA, Stevenson JR. Reliability, validity, and clinical usability of a digital goniometer. Work. 2010;36(1):55-66

Mitchell K, Gutierrez SB, Sutton S, Morton S, Morgenthaler A. Reliability and validity of goniometric iPhone applications for the assessment of active shoulder external rotation. Physiother Theory Pract. 2014;30(7):521-5.

Mourcou Q, Fleury A, Diot B, Franco C, Vuillerme N. Mobile Phone-Based Joint Angle Measurement for Functional Assessment and Rehabilitation of Proprioception. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:328142.

Werner BC, Holzgrefe RE, Griffin JW, Lyons ML, Cosgrove CT, Hart JM, et al. Validation of an innovative method of shoulder range-of-motion measurement using a smartphone clinometer application. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):e275-82.

Johnson LB, Sumner S, Duong T, Yan P, Bajcsy R, Abresch RT, et al. Validity and reliability of smartphone magnetometer-based goniometer evaluation of shoulder abduction - A pilot study. Man Ther. 2015;20(6):777-82.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-10.

Rankin G, Stokes M. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clinical rehabilitation. 1998;12(3):187-99.

Bartko JJ. Measures of agreement: a single procedure. Statistics in medicine. 1994;13(5-7):737-45.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25759/spmfr.219

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Revista da Sociedade Portuguesa de Medicina Física e de Reabilitação