ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2019
Determining the Reliability of a New Method for Measuring Joint Range of Motion Through a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05881876 (Determining the Reliability and Validity of a New Method for Measuring Upper Extremity Joint Range of Motion in Burn Patients Using a Tracking System), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Determining the Reliability and Validity of a New Method for Measuring Upper Extremity Joint Range of Motion in Burn Patients Using a Tracking System
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Robotic Systems with Dynamic Body Weight Support in Post-Traumatic Lower Limb Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Validation of markerless human pose estimation methods for clinical assessment of elbow range of motion.PloS one · 2026Article
- Response to letter to the editor.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- An Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Wireless System for Shoulder Motion Assessment in Patients with Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Validation Pilot Study in a Clinical Setting.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the reliability and validity of the Korean range of motion standard protocol (KRSP) for measuring joint range of motion (ROM) with those of the conventional ROM measurement using a goniometer.
methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial involving 91 healthy elderly individuals. We compared two strategies of measuring joint ROM to evaluate the reliability and validity of each standardized protocol: first, the KRSP based on the Chungnam National University guidelines and second, handheld goniometric measurement. In the first strategy, 3 examiners (1 rehabilitation doctor, 1 physical therapist, and 1 physical therapy student) independently measured joint ROM in 46 randomly selected subjects; in the second strategy, another 3 examiners (1 rehabilitation doctor, 1 physical therapist, and 1 physical therapy student) measured joint ROM in 45 randomly selected subjects. The reliability of each protocol was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(2,1), and root mean square error (RMSE).
resultsBoth protocols showed good to excellent intra-rater reliability. With goniometer use, the inter-rater reliability was low-ICC(2,1), 95% confidence interval ranged from 0.643 (0.486-0.783) to -0.078 (-0.296-0.494)- and RMSE was high. With the KRSP, the inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.846 (0.686-0.931) to 0.986 (0.972-0.994) and RMSE was low.
conclusionROM measurements using the KRSP showed excellent reliability. These results indicate that this protocol can be the reference standard for measuring ROM in clinical settings as an alternative to goniometers.
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.