PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and validity of video screen measurement (VSM) of sagittal plane joint angles during gait. METHODS: 17 children with spastic cerebral palsy walked on a 10m walkway. Videos were recorded and 3d-instrumented gait analysis was performed. Two investigators measured six sagittal joint/segment angles (shank, ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk) using a custom-made software package. The intra- and interrater reproducibility were expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). The agreement between VSM and 3d joint angles was illustrated by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: Regarding the intrarater reproducibility of VSM, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.58 (trunk), the SEM from 0.81 degrees (shank) to 5.97 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.80 degrees (shank) to 16.55 degrees (trunk). Regarding the interrater reproducibility, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.48 (trunk), the SEM from 0.70 degrees (shank) to 6.78 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.95 degrees (shank) to 18.8 degrees (trunk). The LoA between VSM and 3d data ranged from 0.4+/-13.4 degrees (knee extension stance) to 12.0+/-14.6 degrees (ankle dorsiflexion swing). CONCLUSION: When performed by the same observer, VSM mostly allows the detection of relevant changes after an intervention. However, VSM angles differ from 3d-IGA and do not reflect the real sagittal joint position, probably due to the additional movements in the other planes. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and validity of video screen measurement (VSM) of sagittal plane joint angles during gait. METHODS: 17 children with spastic cerebral palsy walked on a 10m walkway. Videos were recorded and 3d-instrumented gait analysis was performed. Two investigators measured six sagittal joint/segment angles (shank, ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk) using a custom-made software package. The intra- and interrater reproducibility were expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). The agreement between VSM and 3d joint angles was illustrated by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: Regarding the intrarater reproducibility of VSM, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.58 (trunk), the SEM from 0.81 degrees (shank) to 5.97 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.80 degrees (shank) to 16.55 degrees (trunk). Regarding the interrater reproducibility, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.48 (trunk), the SEM from 0.70 degrees (shank) to 6.78 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.95 degrees (shank) to 18.8 degrees (trunk). The LoA between VSM and 3d data ranged from 0.4+/-13.4 degrees (knee extension stance) to 12.0+/-14.6 degrees (ankle dorsiflexion swing). CONCLUSION: When performed by the same observer, VSM mostly allows the detection of relevant changes after an intervention. However, VSM angles differ from 3d-IGA and do not reflect the real sagittal joint position, probably due to the additional movements in the other planes. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: Monica J Finkbiner; Kira M Gaina; Marie C McRandall; Megan M Wolf; Vicky M Pardo; Kristina Reid; Brian Adams; Sujay S Galen Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Josina C Maas; Annet J Dallmeijer; Peter A Huijing; Janice E Brunstrom-Hernandez; Petra J van Kampen; Richard T Jaspers; Jules G Becher Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Gema Chamorro-Moriana; Carmen Ridao-Fernández; Joaquín Ojeda; Marisa Benítez-Lugo; José Luis Sevillano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Helga Haberfehlner; Richard T Jaspers; Erich Rutz; Jaap Harlaar; Johannes A van der Sluijs; Melinda M Witbreuk; Kim van Hutten; Jacqueline Romkes; Marie Freslier; Reinald Brunner; Jules G Becher; Huub Maas; Annemieke I Buizer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ruud A Leijendekkers; Thomas J Hoogeboom; Gerben van Hinte; Lars Didden; Thomas Anijs; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Nico Verdonschot Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240