ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015
Reliability of three landmarking methods for dual inclinometry measurements of lumbar flexion and extension.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of an exercise-based prehabilitation program for patients awaiting surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- The Immediate Effects of Dry Cupping the Lumbar Paraspinals on Range of Motion and Temperature.International journal of exercise science · 2024Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Double Inclinometer Method for Assessing Thoracolumbar Joint Position Sense and Range of Movement in Patients with a Recent History of Low Back Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Physical Predictors of Favorable Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Laminectomy or Laminotomy for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Effects of High - Intensity Laser in Treatment of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- The Immediate Effect of Therapeutic Touch and Deep Touch Pressure on Range of Motion, Interoceptive Accuracy and Heart Rate Variability: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Moderation Analysis.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2018Article
- Lumbar Mobility and Performance-Based Function: An Investigation in Older Adults with and without Chronic Low Back Pain.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.