Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35441107›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2022

Validation of a novel range of motion assessment tool for the cervical spine: the HALO

Ashley R Wilson-Smith, Saimurooban Muralidaran, Monish Maharaj, Matthew H Pelletier, Peter Beshara, Prashanth Rao, Louise M Pearce, Tian Wang, Ralph J Mobbs, William R Walsh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validity of the HALOJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use of the Zebris Ultrasonic Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis System to Evaluate Range of Motion of the Cervical Spine in 61 Healthy Adults.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley R Wilson-Smith *Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Saimurooban Muralidaran *Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Monish MaharajPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew H PelletierSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Peter BesharaPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Prashanth RaoPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Louise M PearcePrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Tian WangSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
William R WalshSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Prince of Wales Hospital · AUSydney Orthopaedic Research Institute · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cervical spine range of motion (ROM) assessment has long been carried out via use of the universal goniometer (UG) as an objective tool in the evaluation of patient rehabilitation pre- and post-operatively. The advent of novel ROM assessment technology, such as HALO digital goniometer (DG), presents an avenue for research and potential application within clinical and surgical settings. The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the HALO DG in the assessment of the active ROM of the cervical spine. Methods: One hundred healthy subjects were recruited for the study and were split into two groups to be assessed by either physiotherapists or medical students. The methodology for cervical spine ROM assessment was carried out per the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. The reliability analysis was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to determine both the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the device. Results: Inter-rater reliability within the physiotherapist cohort with the DG (ICCr =0.477, 0.718, 0.551) was higher compared to the UG (ICCr =0.380, 0.510, 0.255) for active cervical flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. The UG (ICCr =0.819) showed better reliability versus the DG (ICCr =0.780) when assessing cervical extension. Similarly, in the medical student cohort, the DG outperformed the UG in all movement except cervical lateral flexion. When assessing for intra-rater reliability, the DG (ICCm =0.507, 0.773, 0.728, 0.691) performed better than the UG (ICCm =0.487, 0.529, 0.532, 0.585) in cervical flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. Conclusions: The present validation study identified the DG as a reliable substitute for the UG.

Indexed as

cervical spinedigital goniometer (DG)Range of motion (ROM)universal goniometer (UG)

Identifiers

PMID35441107
PMCPMC8990404
OpenAlexW4206320100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.