Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28319141›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Heightened clinical utility of smartphone versus body-worn inertial system for shoulder function B-B score.

Claude Pichonnaz, Kamiar Aminian, Céline Ancey, Hervé Jaccard, Estelle Lécureux, Cyntia Duc, Alain Farron, Brigitte M Jolles, Nigel Gleeson

Abstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Claude PichonnazPhysiotherapy Department, Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud (HESAV)//HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9381-8503
Kamiar AminianLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Céline AnceyPhysiotherapy Department, Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud (HESAV)//HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Hervé JaccardPhysiotherapy Department, Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud (HESAV)//HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Estelle LécureuxDirection médicale, CHUV-UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cyntia DucLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alain FarronService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland., CHUV-UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Brigitte M JollesService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland., CHUV-UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nigel GleesonSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe B-B Score is a straightforward kinematic shoulder function score including only two movements (hand to the Back + lift hand as to change a Bulb) that demonstrated sound measurement properties for patients for various shoulder pathologies. However, the B-B Score results using a smartphone or a reference system have not yet been compared. Provided that the measurement properties are comparable, the use of a smartphone would offer substantial practical advantages. This study investigated the concurrent validity of a smartphone and a reference inertial system for the measurement of the kinematic shoulder function B-B Score.

methodsSixty-five patients with shoulder conditions (with rotator cuff conditions, adhesive capsulitis and proximal humerus fracture) and 20 healthy participants were evaluated using a smartphone and a reference inertial system. Measurements were performed twice, alternating between two evaluators. The B-B Score differences between groups, differences between devices, relationship between devices, intra- and inter-evaluator reproducibility were analysed.

resultsThe smartphone mean scores (SD) were 94.1 (11.1) for controls and 54.1 (18.3) for patients (P < 0.01). The difference between devices was non-significant for the control (P = 0.16) and the patient group (P = 0.81). The analysis of the relationship between devices showed 0.97 ICC, -0.6 bias and -13.2 to 12.0 limits of agreement (LOA). The smartphone intra-evaluator ICC was 0.92, the bias 1.5 and the LOA -17.4 to 20.3. The smartphone inter-evaluator ICC was 0.92, the bias 1.5 and the LOA -16.9 to 20.0.

conclusionsThe B-B Score results measured with a smartphone were comparable to those of an inertial system. While single measurements diverged in some cases, the intra- and inter-evaluator reproducibility was excellent and was equivalent between devices. The B-B score measured with a smartphone is straightforward and as efficient as a reference inertial system measurement.

Indexed as

AccelerometrySeverity of Illness IndexSmartphoneAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansHumerusInjury Severity ScoreJoint DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedMovementObserver VariationProspective StudiesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28319141
PMCPMC5358877

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.