Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31013931›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Assessment of Shoulder Range of Motion Using a Wireless Inertial Motion Capture Device-A Validation Study.

Michael Rigoni, Stephen Gill, Sina Babazadeh, Osama Elsewaisy, Hugh Gillies, Nhan Nguyen, Pubudu N Pathirana, Richard Page

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Shoulder Proprioception: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Michael RigoniDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. mrigoni21@gmail.com.
Stephen GillDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. stephen.gill2@deakin.edu.au.
Sina BabazadehDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. sbabazadeh@gmail.com.
Osama ElsewaisyDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. oelsewaisy@gmail.com.
Hugh GilliesDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. hugh.gillies@gmail.com.
Nhan NguyenDeakin University, Waurn Ponds & Burwood, Victoria 3216 & 3125, Australia. ndn@deakin.edu.au.
Pubudu N PathiranaDeakin University, Waurn Ponds & Burwood, Victoria 3216 & 3125, Australia. pubudu.pathirana@deakin.edu.au.
Richard PageDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia. richard.page@deakin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Measuring joint range of motion has traditionally occurred with a universal goniometer or expensive laboratory based kinematic analysis systems. Technological advances in wearable inertial measurement units (IMU) enables limb motion to be measured with a small portable electronic device. This paper aims to validate an IMU, the 'Biokin', for measuring shoulder range of motion in healthy adults; (2) Methods: Thirty participants completed four shoulder movements (forward flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation) on each shoulder. Each movement was assessed with a goniometer and the IMU by two testers independently. The extent of agreement between each tester's goniometer and IMU measurements was assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Secondary analysis compared agreement between tester's goniometer or IMU measurements (inter-rater reliability) using ICC's and LOA; (3) Results: Goniometer and IMU measurements for all movements showed high levels of agreement when taken by the same tester; ICCs > 0.90 and LOAs < ±5 degrees. Inter-rater reliability was lower; ICCs ranged between 0.71 to 0.89 and LOAs were outside a prior defined acceptable LOAs (i.e., > ±5 degrees); (4) Conclusions: The current study provides preliminary evidence of the concurrent validity of the Biokin IMU for assessing shoulder movements, but only when a single tester took measurements. Further testing of the Biokin's psychometric properties is required before it can be confidently used in routine clinical practice and research settings.

Indexed as

Wearable Electronic DevicesAdultArthrometry, ArticularBiomechanical PhenomenaExtremitiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicMotionRange of Motion, ArticularShoulderWireless TechnologyYoung AdultgoniometerIMUinertial measurement unitjoint range of motionROMshoulderwearablewireless

Identifiers

PMID31013931
PMCPMC6514956

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.