Reliability of the Cervical Range of Motion Device in Measuring Upper Cervical Motion

Dhimitri, Kenneth; Brodeur, Suzette; Croteau, Michele; Richard, Stephanie A; Seymour, Connie J.

doi:10.1179/jmt.1998.6.1.31

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ROM tests were performed in the seated position as a modification to the standing method described by Dhimitri et al 1998, and to accommodate subjects with a hyper-kyphotic thoracic spine. During CS E-F tests, subjects were asked to sit upright, with both hands relaxed on their lap.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CROM™ 1 is a cervical range of motion device with proven clinical utility in measuring E-F of the UCS (Dhimitri et al, 1998), and validity for use in the CS (Tousignant et al, 2000).…”

Section: Measurement Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inter-tester reliability for the CROM is reported for the UCS to be ICC>=0.89 (Dhimitri et al, 1998). The Polhemus G4 (originally called the 3-Space, Colchester, Vermont, USA) is an electromagnetic 3D-tracking device used to quantify UCS (Amiri et al, 2003) and CS ROM (Ordway et al, 1997, Tousignant et al, 2000, de Koning et al, 2008.…”

Section: Measurement Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extension and flexion in the upper cervical spine in neck pain patients

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neck pain is a common problem in the general population with high risk of ongoing complaints or relapses. Range of motion (ROM) assessment is scientifically established in the clinical process of diagnosis, prognosis and outcome evaluation in neck pain. Anatomically, the cervical spine (CS) has been considered in two regions, the upper and lower CS. Disorders like cervicogenic headache have been clinically associated with dysfunctions of the upper CS (UCS), yet ROM tests and measurements are typically conducted on the whole CS. A cross-sectional study assessing 19 subjects with non-specific neck pain was undertaken to examine UCS extension-flexion ROM in relation to self-reported disability and pain (via the Neck Disability Index (NDI)). Two measurement devices (goniometer and electromagnetic tracking) were employed and compared. Correlations between ROM and the NDI were stronger for the UCS compared to the CS, with the strongest correlation between UCS flexion and the NDI-headache (r = -0.62). Correlations between UCS and CS ROM were fair to moderate, with the strongest correlation between UCS flexion and CS extension ROM (r = -0.49). UCS flexion restriction is related to headache frequency and intensity. Consistency and agreement between both measurement systems and for all tests was high. The results demonstrate that separate UCS ROM assessments for extension and flexion are useful in patients with neck pain.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurement Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurement Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extension and flexion in the upper cervical spine in neck pain patients

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, many techniques for 3D-kinematic research have shown adequate to good reproducibility: electro-goniometers and electroinclinometers (McClure et al, 1998;Tousignant et al, 2001;Haynes and Edmondston, 2002;Edmondston et al, 2005) skin-surface devices (Mannion et al, 2004), the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM) (Capuano-Pucci et al, 1991;Youdas et al, 1992;Dhimitri et al, 1998;Hickey et al, 2000), electromagnetic tracking (Trott et al, 1996;Jordan et al, 2000;Amiri et al, 2003a,b;Carpaneto et al, 2004;Jordan et al, 2004), ultrasound-based systems (Vogt and Banter, 1997;Natalis and Konig, 1999;Mannion et al, 2000;Schreiber et al, 2001;Wang et al, 2005), video-based devices (Robinson et al, 1993;Antonaci et al, 2002) and low dose fluoroscopy or systems combining enhanced digital fluoroscopy videography (DFV) with distortion compensated roentgen analysis (DCRA) (Breen et al, 2006;Teyhen et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of kinematic motion coupling parameters during manual upper cervical axial rotation mobilization: A 3-dimensional in vitro study of the atlanto-axial joint

Cattrysse

Provyn

Kool

et al. 2009

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The CROM was placed onto the head as described by the manufacturers: the magnetic yolk was not used in these experiments, as rotation was not measured in this study. CROM devices have been used extensively in this type of research and have been shown to have sufficient accuracy [17], validity [18, 19], and reliability [20] for studies of ACROM such as this. This CROM device had a custom made laser block (Perspex block containing a pencil laser (class 3a: 650 nm: miraclebeam™ Pacoima, CA) mounted (screwed) on the rotational arm slightly forward of the position which would overly the vertex (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearing American Football helmets increases cervicocephalic kinaesthetic awareness in “elite” American Football players but not controls

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhile there have been investigations into the reduced neck injury rate of wearing protective helmets, there is little information on its effects on normal kinaesthetic neck function. This study aims to quantify the kinaesthetic and movement effects of the American football helmet.MethodsFifteen British Collegiate American football players (mean age 22.2, SD 1.9; BMI kg.m2 26.3, SD 3.7) were age and size matched to 11 non-American football playing university students (mean age 22.5, SD 3.6; BMI 24.3, SD 3.3 kg.m2). Both groups had their active cervical range of motion and head repositioning accuracy measured during neck flexion/extension using a modified cervical range of motion device and a similarly modified football helmet.ResultsWearing helmets significantly reduced active cervical range of motion in extension in both groups (P = 0.007 and P = 0.001 Controls and American Footballers respectively). While both groups had similar repositioning when not wearing a helmet (flexion P = 0.99; extension P = 0.52), when wearing helmets, American football players appeared to be more accurate in relation to cervical kinaesthetic repositioning (ANOVA: P = 0.077: flexion effect size =0.84; extension effect size =0.38).ConclusionsWearing American football helmets significantly reduces the active cervical range of motion in extension, along with a change in the neutral head position. American footballers have a greater accuracy in repositioning their head from flexion (potentially enhanced proprioception) when wearing a helmet. This finding might allow development of a simple objective test to help discern presence of minor concussive or cervical musculoskeletal injury on or off the field.

show abstract

Reliability of the Cervical Range of Motion Device in Measuring Upper Cervical Motion

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Extension and flexion in the upper cervical spine in neck pain patients

Extension and flexion in the upper cervical spine in neck pain patients

Reproducibility of kinematic motion coupling parameters during manual upper cervical axial rotation mobilization: A 3-dimensional in vitro study of the atlanto-axial joint

Wearing American Football helmets increases cervicocephalic kinaesthetic awareness in “elite” American Football players but not controls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About