ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2022
Reliability and validity of lower limb joint range of motion measurements using a smartphone.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Criterion Validity and Inter-Method Reliability of a Smartphone Sensor-Based Application for Lower-Limb Range of Motion: In-Person vs. Tele-Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of a Novel Smartphone Tele-Assessment Solution for Quantifying Hip Range of Motion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of using a smartphone to measure the multi-joint range of motion of the lower limbs. We measured the straight leg raise angle, ankle dorsiflexion angle, and hip internal rotation angle in each of the 40 lower extremities of 20 healthy adults. Measurements were compared between a conventional method using a goniometer and a smartphone application method. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the reliability of each smartphone measurement, and Bland-Altman analysis was used to examine measurement errors. The criterion-related validity of the two methods was also examined. Intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.668-0.939) was substantial to almost perfect, with no systematic errors found for all items, and the standard errors of measurement were acceptable. Inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.701-0.936) was also substantial to almost perfect, but the straight leg raise angle and hip internal rotation angle showed fixation errors. For these two measurements, with more than one examiner, the limit of agreement of error needs to be considered. No systematic errors were found in the ankle dorsiflexion angle, and the standard error of measurement was within the acceptable range. A moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.626-0.915) was found between the conventional and smartphone methods, demonstrating good criterion-related validity. However, in the ankle dorsiflexion angle measurements, the reliability and validity were shown to be lower than the other two items. This suggested the necessity of changing the measurement conditions in order to use the ankle dorsiflexion angle in 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.