Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42683063›Full record

ArticleArchives of physiotherapy

Concurrent validity of a novel digital dynamometerfor assessing performance on the Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test.

Marco Barbero, Daniele Lonati, Marco Griseri, Corrado Cescon, Alessandro Bonafine, Tiziano Negrisolo, Emanuele Falzone, Samuel Pedrucci, Erik Cattrysse, Deborah Falla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of physiotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Marco BarberoRehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Manno - Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8579-0686
Daniele LonatiMedAction, Rapperswil-Jona - Switzerland.
Marco GriseriRehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Manno - Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9679-1087
Corrado CesconRehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Manno - Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1632-6684
Alessandro BonafineBachelor of Science in Physiotherapy, Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Manno - Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6933-1811
Tiziano NegrisoloFisioterapia Kinesis, Mendrisio - Switzerland.
Emanuele FalzoneStudio di fisioterapia di Emanuele Falzone, Arbedo-Castione - Switzerland.
Samuel PedrucciFisiorehab, Manno - Switzerland.
Erik CattrysseExperimental Anatomy Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy and Human Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education andPhysiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels - Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4325-9576
Deborah FallaCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham,Birmingham - United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1689-6190

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test (CCFT) is a validated clinical test used to evaluate deep cervical flexor muscle function. A pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) has traditionally been the reference device. Recently, a new portable digital device known as the Neuromuscular Cranio-cervical Device (NOD) has been developed as a potential alternative. Methods: In this cross-sectional concurrent validation study, 88 participants were recruited from four outpatient physiotherapy practices, including individuals with current neck pain and individuals with a previous history of neck pain. All participants performed the CCFT using both devices. The PBU was inflated to a baseline pressure of 20 mmHg, with the participant then performing C-CF to increase the pressure in increments of 2 mmHg over five progressive stages, while the NOD was calibrated to corresponding force targets. Agreement and concurrent validity between the devices were assessed, and C-CF range of motion (ROM) was analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Results: Agreement between CCFT performance scores obtained with the NOD and the PBU was 94.3%, with a very strong positive correlation (Spearman's ρ = 0.930, p < 0.001). The NOD measured slightly greater C-CF ROM than the PBU (mean difference 0.68°), with significant differences at lower CCFT stages that converged at higher stages of the test. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate strong concurrent validity between the NOD and the PBU, supporting the NOD as a valid digital alternative for assessment of the CCFT.

Indexed as

Concurrent validityCranio-Cervical Flexion TestDeep neck flexors

Identifiers

PMID42683063
PMCPMC13531006

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.