Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29568701›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Reliability and concurrent validity of the iPhone

James Furness, Ben Schram, Alistair J Cox, Sarah L Anderson, Justin Keogh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Smartphone application technique for localising magnetically controlled growth rod actuators: the Oxford Magnetic Counter App Technique (TOMCAT).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

James FurnessWater Based Research Unit, Bond Institute of Health and Sport, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Ben SchramWater Based Research Unit, Bond Institute of Health and Sport, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Alistair J CoxDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Sarah L AndersonDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Justin KeoghFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Bond University · AUUniversity of the Sunshine Coast · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral water-based sports (swimming, surfing and stand up paddle boarding) require adequate thoracic mobility (specifically rotation) in order to perform the appropriate activity requirements. The measurement of thoracic spine rotation is problematic for clinicians due to a lack of convenient and reliable measurement techniques. More recently, smartphones have been used to quantify movement in various joints in the body; however, there appears to be a paucity of research using smartphones to assess thoracic spine movement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the reliability (intra and inter rater) and validity of the iPhone

methodsA total of thirty participants were recruited for this study. Thoracic spine rotation ROM was measured using both the current clinical gold standard, a universal goniometer (UG) and the Smart Phone Compass app. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was determined with a Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Validation of the Compass app in comparison to the UG was measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient and levels of agreement were identified with Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement.

resultsBoth the UG and Compass app measurements both had excellent reproducibility for intra-rater (ICC 0.94-0.98) and inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.72-0.89). However, the Compass app measurements had higher intra-rater reliability (

conclusionThis study reveals that the iPhone

Indexed as

ApplicationsAppsGoniometryiPhoneLevel of agreementRange of motionReliabilityThoracic spineValidityWater-based sport

Identifiers

PMID29568701
PMCPMC5845564
OpenAlexW2790908843

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.