ArticleJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation2026
Validity of the HALO
Article in Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study evaluated the validity of the HALO™ digital goniometer compared to the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM™) device for assessing cervical range of motion (ROM) in a sample of 20 patients with cervicogenic headache (CGH).MethodsROM was measured simultaneously using both devices across six movement planes at two time points, at baseline and 4 weeks later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess agreement, and Bland-Altman analyses evaluated measurement bias.ResultsResults showed excellent to good agreement between the HALO™ and CROM™ for most movements (ICC = 0.880 to 0.994), with flexion, extension, and left rotation demonstrating excellent reliability (ICC > 0.9). Left side flexion and right rotation showed good agreement (ICC = 0.888 and 0.880, respectively), while right side flexion had lower (moderate) agreement (ICC = 0.688, 95% CI [-0.073 to 0.902]). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the HALO™ tended to slightly overestimate ROM in several directions, with statistically significant yet clinically negligible (<5° difference) biases for flexion, side flexion, and right rotation, indicating that the clinical interchangeability between the two devices may be limited for these movements.ConclusionThe HALO™ demonstrated good validity compared to the CROM™ for measuring cervical ROM in individuals with CGH. Both its portability and ease of use make it a viable alternative. However, variability observed in side flexion and the modest sample size suggest that caution is warranted, and further validation in larger and more diverse populations is needed before it can be considered interchangeable with the CROM™.
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.