ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2022
Validation of a novel range of motion assessment tool for the cervical spine: the HALO
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity of the HALOJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Inter-Rater Reliability of Active Cervical Range of Motion Measured With Digital Goniometer in Asymptomatic University-Level American Football Athletes.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Demographic, Epidemiological and Functional Profile Models of Greek CrossFit Athletes in Relation to Shoulder Injuries: A Prospective Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Guided Exercise and Self-Paced Exercise After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Clinical Validation and Outcome Measures From Bend Ease: A Novel, Sensor-Based Digital Measurement Tool for Assessing At-Home Morning Stiffness and Spinal Range of Motion in Axial Spondyloarthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Multi-Planar Cervical Motion Dataset: IMU Measurements and Goniometer.Scientific data · 2025Article
- An investigation into the frequency and risk factors of low back pain following surgical treatment of isolated calcaneal fractures.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.