ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Reliability and usability of a novel inertial sensor-based system to test craniocervical flexion movement control.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundNeck pain has a significant global impact, ranking as the fourth leading cause of disability. Recurrent neck pain often leads to impaired sensorimotor control, particularly in craniocervical flexion (CFF). The Craniocervical Flexion Test (CCFT) has been widely investigated to assess the performance of deep cervical flexor muscles. However, its use requires skilled assessors who need to subjectively detect compensations, progressive increases in range of motion (ROM) or excessive superficial flexor activation during the test. The aim of this study was to design and develop a novel Craniocervical Flexion Movement Control Test (CFMCT) based on inertial sensor technology and real-time computer feedback and to evaluate its safety and usability, as well as inter and intra-rater reliability in both healthy individuals and patients with neck pain.
methodsWe used inertial sensor technology associated with new software that provides real-time computer feedback to assess CCF movement control through two independent test protocols, the progressive consecutive stages protocol (including progressive incremental stages of ROM) and the random stages protocol (providing dynamic and less predictable movement patterns). We determined intra and inter-rater reliability and standard error of the measurement for both protocols. The participants rated their usability was analysed through the System Usability Scale (SUS) and possible secondary effects associated with the tests were registered.
resultsThe progressive consecutive stages protocol and the random stages protocol were safe and easy to use (SUS scores of 82.00 ± 11.55 in the pain group and 79.56 ± 13.36 in the asymptomatic group). The progressive consecutive stages protocol demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.75) and moderate to good intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.62-0.80). However, the random stages protocol exhibited lower intra-rater reliability, especially in the neck pain group, where the reliability values were poor in some cases (ICC 0.48-0.72).
conclusionThe CFMCT (progressive consecutive stages protocol) is a promising instrument to evaluate CCF motor control in patients with chronic neck pain. It has potential for telehealth assessment and easy adherence for exercise prescription and seems to be a safe and usable tool for patients with pain and asymptomatic individuals. Its use as a test or for exercise needs to be further investigated to facilitate its transfer to 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.