ArticleArchives of physiotherapy
Concurrent validity of a novel digital dynamometerfor assessing performance on the Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.