Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25989834›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015

Reliability of three landmarking methods for dual inclinometry measurements of lumbar flexion and extension.

Joy C MacDermid, Vanitha Arumugam, Joshua I Vincent, Kimberly L Payne, Aubrey K So

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of High - Intensity Laser in Treatment of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joy C MacDermidFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. jmacderm@uwo.ca.
Vanitha ArumugamFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. varumuga@uwo.ca.
Joshua I VincentRoth - MacFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Center, St. Joseph's Healthcare London, London, Ontario, Canada. joshuaisrael1985@gmail.com.
Kimberly L PayneFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. klpayne@uwo.ca.
Aubrey K SoFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Akso@uwo.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine the intra and inter-rater reliability of lumbar flexion and extension measurements attained using three landmarking methods for dual inclinometry.

methodsThis was a repeated measures reliability study. Convenience sampling was used to obtain forty volunteer subjects. Two assessors measured a series of lumbar flexion and extension movements using the J-Tech™ dual inclinometer. Three different landmarking methods were used: 1) straight palpation of PSIS and L1, 2) palpation of PSIS and the site of the nearest 5 cm interval point closest to L1 and 3) location of PSIS and 15 cm cephalad. Upon landmarking, adhesive tape was used to mark landmarks and the inclinometer was placed on sites for three trials of flexion and extension. Tape was removed and landmarks were relocated by the same assessor (intra-rater) for an additional three trials; and this process was repeated by a second assessor (inter-rater). Reliability was determined using intra-class correlation coefficients.

resultsReliability within a set of three repetitions was very high (ICCs > 0.90); intra-rater reliability after relocating landmarks was high (ICCs > 0.80); reliability between therapists was moderate to high (0.60 > ICCs < 0.76). Assessment of flexion and extension movements by straight palpation of bony landmarks as in the Straight palpation of PSIS and L1 method (ICC: Flexion 0.60; Extension 0.74) was found to be marginally less reliable than the other two landmarking measurement strategies (ICC: Flexion 0.66; Extension 0.76).

conclusionAll three methods of land marking are reliable. We recommend the use of the PSIS to 15 cm cephalad method as used in the modified-modified Schobers test as it is the simplest to perform and aligns with current clinical practice.

Indexed as

Anatomic LandmarksAdultAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPalpationPredictive Value of TestsRange of Motion, ArticularReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25989834
PMCPMC4437685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.