Intratester and intertester reproducibility of the lumbar motion monitor as a measure of range, velocity and acceleration of the thoracolumbar spine

Gill, KP; Callaghan, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/0268-0033(96)00031-9

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Articles failed inclusion due to the following reasons: 507 used other technologies such as roentgenographic analysis or invasive procedures such as spinal surgery 41,42 ; 391 did not use a test-retest or intratester/intertester design; 131 involved other activities such as walking; 71 were not written in English, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian languages; and 40 were animal studies. For the included articles, reproducibility or reliability of spinal lumbar motion was reported as a sole investigative target in 7 articles, [23][24][25][43][44][45][46] whereas the remaining 8 articles investigated reproducibility or reliability as part of a study dealing with another primary aim. 22,26,[47][48][49][50][51][52] There were only minor disagreements between the 2 reviewers with respect to selection of the studies or extraction of data and with respect to the quality assessment judgment.…”

Section: Included Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of the original studies applied different designs of repeated measurements; intertester designs were used in 7 articles, 22,23,[45][46][47]49,52 and intratester designs were used in 11 articles. 22,23,26,43,[45][46][47][49][50][51][52] In the remaining 4 articles, the authors used other designs or other undefined repeated measurement methods on the same subjects under stable conditions. 24,25,44,48 All studies applying intertester design also contained intratester design.…”

Section: Descriptive Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,20 Noninvasive, real-time 3-dimensional (3D) regional instruments can provide a quantitative assessment of complex spinal kinematics (eg, coupled motion, combined motion, velocity, acceleration, and smoothness of motion [jerk index]). 21 Conceptually, these measurement instruments are intended to measure the same construct, however, using different underlying technology, for example, electromagnetic, 16 potentiometric, 22,23 gyrometric, 24 and optoelectronic 25 as well as ultrasound pulse 26 measuring devices. These noninvasive instruments have no known side effects; compared with roentgenographic analyses, these instruments carry no risk of exposure to radiation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Mieritz

Brønfort

Kawchuk

et al. 2012

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Included Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Mieritz

Brønfort

Kawchuk

et al. 2012

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…27 Also, the reproducibility of the LMM for in vivo ROM measurement in the 3 primary planes is suitably high (ICC = 0.82-0.96) for use in research and clinical settings. 15 The LMM was attached onto the subjects according to previous specifications. 16 Care was taken that both harnesses were appropriately secured on the subjects to avoid any movement between the device and the subjects' skin.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thoracolumbar Proprioception in Individuals with and without Low Back Pain: Intratester Reliability, Clinical Applicability, and Validity

Koumantakis¹,

Winstanley²,

Oldham³

2002

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Repeated measures design of active spinal position sense in individuals with and without low back pain (LBP). Objectives: Reproducibility and validity evaluation of thoracolumbar proprioception measurement. Background: Proprioception studies in peripheral joints and the spine suggest that there may be proprioception deficits due to injury, pain, or degeneration. Kinesthetic retraining may be useful in rehabilitation of patients with LBP, but appropriate measures are required to objectively quantify spinal proprioception. Methods and Measures: Active-target reproduction in the sagittal, horizontal, and coronal planes was assessed (3 separate occasions for 18 asymptomatic volunteers and 2 occasions for 62 patients with LBP). Repositioning accuracy was expressed as absolute errors (AE) and variable errors (VE). Reliability was analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and precision with standard error of measurement (SEM) and calculation of the smallest detectable difference (SDD) index. Repeated measures ANOVA and correlations were used for within-group comparisons and discriminant analysis for between-group comparisons. Results: Reproducibility was better for the asymptomatic group, with AE for flexion and rotation being the most reliable (ICC = 0.76-0.80, SEM = 0.91°-1.34°). SDDs were high for all tests, suggesting limited clinical applicability. Reproducibility for the same tests was poor-moderate (ICC = 0.31-0.64, SEM = 0.45°-3.90°) for the patient group. AE for right-side rotation could discriminate between subject groups with 83.3% specificity but only 54.8% sensitivity. Conclusions: Proprioception testing, with the methods employed, did not demonstrate good measurement properties in a sample of patients with recurrent LBP. Neither could it sufficiently discriminate between individuals with and without LBP. Possible reasons for these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…One of these methods is to measure the range of motion 1) . Clinicians have routinely conducted visual analysis and radiographic assessments of spinal posture and back shape 2) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrarater Reliability and Interrater Reliability in Spinal Motion Assessments

Han

Cho

et al. 2010

J Phys Ther Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.[Purpose] The aim of the present study was to measure the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of spinal motions using a skin-surface device (SpinalMouse; Idiag, Voletswil, Switzerland). [Methods] Spinal motion was measured in upright standing, trunk flexion, and trunk extension in 38 healthy adults. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to examine between-day and interrater reliabilities for spinal motion.[Results] For intrarater reliability of Raters 1 and 2, Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.76-0.98, and ICC was 0.73-0.98, indicating high reliability in all cases except for extension of the sacral/hip. For interrater reliability on days 1 and 2, Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.75-0.97 and ICC was 0.77-0.97 for all cases except for extension of the sacral/hip.[Conclusion] The reliability of SpinalMouse was demonstrated to be fair or higher but the measurement for extension of the sacral/hip needs further investigation.

show abstract

Intratester and intertester reproducibility of the lumbar motion monitor as a measure of range, velocity and acceleration of the thoracolumbar spine

Cited by 31 publications

References 11 publications

Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Thoracolumbar Proprioception in Individuals with and without Low Back Pain: Intratester Reliability, Clinical Applicability, and Validity

Intrarater Reliability and Interrater Reliability in Spinal Motion Assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About