Literature DB >> 24175147

Concurrent validity of digital inclinometer and universal goniometer in assessing passive hip mobility in healthy subjects.

Sean Roach1, Jun G San Juan, David N Suprak, Marc Lyda.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hip range of motion is an important component in assessing clinical orthopedic conditions of the hip, low back and lower extremities. However it remains unclear as to what constitutes the best tool for clinical measurement. The purpose of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of passive range of motion (ROM) measurements of hip extension and hip internal and external rotation using a digital inclinometer and goniometer.
DESIGN: Criterion Standard.
SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 30 healthy subjects without pain, radicular symptoms or history of surgery in the low back or hip regions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Passive hip range of motion for extension, hip internal rotation and hip external rotation. A digital inclinometer and universal goniometer were utilized as the tools for comparisons between measurements.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the goniometer and digital inclinometer in measured hip ROM except for measurements of right hip external rotation (p > 0.05). The mean difference between the goniometer and digital inclinometer in left hip extension, internal rotation and external rotation were 3.5°, 4.5° and 5.0° respectively. The mean difference between the two devices in right hip extension, internal rotation and external rotation were 2.8°, 4.2° and 2.6° respectively. On average, the difference between the goniometer and digital inclinometer in extension was 3.2°, internal rotation was 4.5° and external rotation was 3.8°. The digital inclinometer had greater measurement during EXT and ER. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in hip ROM between the left and right side for either goniometric or digital inclinometer measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: This results of this study indicate that a significant difference exists between the two devices in all measurements with exception of right hip extension. The differences were noted to be between 3-5 degrees for all planes measured. These findings suggest that caution should be used if these two devices are to be used interchangeably to quantify passive hip range of motion in either clinical practice or when comparing studies that utilize different instruments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Goniometry, hip; lumbar, passive range of motion; validity

Year:  2013        PMID: 24175147      PMCID: PMC3811733     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 2159-2896


  31 in total

1.  Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder range of motion.

Authors:  K Hayes; J R Walton; Z R Szomor; G A Murrell
Journal:  Aust J Physiother       Date:  2001

2.  The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report.

Authors:  Morey J Kolber; William J Hanney
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-06

3.  Reliability of inclinometer and goniometric measurements of hip extension flexibility using the modified Thomas test.

Authors:  Phyllis A Clapis; Susan Mercik Davis; Ross Otto Davis
Journal:  Physiother Theory Pract       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Assessment of the flexibility of elite athletes using the modified Thomas test.

Authors:  D Harvey
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 13.800

5.  Reliability of goniometric measurements in children with cerebral palsy: a comparative analysis of universal goniometer and electronic inclinometer. A pilot study.

Authors:  Pablo Herrero; Patricia Carrera; Elena García; Eva M Gómez-Trullén; Bárbara Oliván-Blázquez
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-07-10       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Reliability of goniometric measurements.

Authors:  D C Boone; S P Azen; C M Lin; C Spence; C Baron; L Lee
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1978-11

7.  Clinical evaluation of hip joint rotation range of motion in adults.

Authors:  P Kouyoumdjian; R Coulomb; T Sanchez; G Asencio
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 2.256

8.  The reliability and minimal detectable change of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer.

Authors:  Morey J Kolber; Fernando Vega; Kristen Widmayer; Ming-Shun S Cheng
Journal:  Physiother Theory Pract       Date:  2010-08-08       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Validity and test-retest reliability of manual goniometers for measuring passive hip range of motion in femoroacetabular impingement patients.

Authors:  Silvio Nussbaumer; Michael Leunig; Julia F Glatthorn; Simone Stauffacher; Hans Gerber; Nicola A Maffiuletti
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Lower extremity muscular flexibility in long distance runners.

Authors:  S S Wang; S L Whitney; R G Burdett; J E Janosky
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 4.751

View more
  22 in total

1.  COMPARISON OF VIDEO-GUIDED, LIVE INSTRUCTED, AND SELF-GUIDED FOAM ROLL INTERVENTIONS ON KNEE JOINT RANGE OF MOTION AND PRESSURE PAIN THRESHOLD: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

Authors:  Scott W Cheatham; Morey J Kolber; Matt Cain
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-04

2.  Concurrent validity of photogrammetric and inclinometric techniques based on assessment of anteroposterior spinal curvatures.

Authors:  Katarzyna Walicka-Cupryś; Justyna Wyszyńska; Justyna Podgórska-Bednarz; Justyna Drzał-Grabiec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Patellofemoral pain subjects exhibit decreased passive hip range of motion compared to controls.

Authors:  Sean M Roach; Jun G San Juan; Dave N Suprak; Marc Lyda; Cooper Boydston
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2014-08

4.  Passive hip range of motion is reduced in active subjects with chronic low back pain compared to controls.

Authors:  Sean M Roach; Jun G San Juan; Dave N Suprak; Marc Lyda; Alexander J Bies; Cooper R Boydston
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-02

5.  HIP RANGE OF MOTION IN RECREATIONAL WEIGHT TRAINING PARTICIPANTS: A DESCRIPTIVE REPORT.

Authors:  Scott Cheatham; William J Hanney; Morey J Kolber
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-10

6.  COMPARISON OF THREE DIFFERENT DENSITY TYPE FOAM ROLLERS ON KNEE RANGE OF MOTION AND PRESSURE PAIN THRESHOLD: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

Authors:  Scott W Cheatham; Kyle R Stull
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2018-06

7.  ACUTE OUTCOMES OF MYOFASCIAL DECOMPRESSION (CUPPING THERAPY) COMPARED TO SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE ON HAMSTRING PATHOLOGY AFTER A SINGLE TREATMENT.

Authors:  Aric J Warren; Zach LaCross; Jennifer L Volberding; Matthew S O'Brien
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2020-08

8.  Dynamic radiostereometric analysis for evaluation of hip joint pathomechanics.

Authors:  Lars Hansen; Sepp de Raedt; Peter Bo Jørgensen; Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen; Bart Kaptein; Maiken Stilling
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2017-06-05

9.  Three-dimensional motion analysis of ten common Asian sitting positions in daily living and factors affect range of hip motions.

Authors:  Phob Ganokroj; Jirayu Chaowalitwong; Pichitpol Kerdsomnuek; Narumol Sudjai; Pisit Lertwanich; Bavornrat Vanadurongwan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  The modified Thomas test is not a valid measure of hip extension unless pelvic tilt is controlled.

Authors:  Andrew D Vigotsky; Gregory J Lehman; Chris Beardsley; Bret Contreras; Bryan Chung; Erin H Feser
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.