Kimberly H McVeigh1, Peter M Murray2, Michael G Heckman3, Bhupendra Rawal3, Jeffrey J Peterson4. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. Electronic address: murray.peter@mayo.edu. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare goniometric and visual assessments of angular hand joint and wrist joint positions measured by board-certified hand surgeons and certified hand therapists. We hypothesized that visual estimation would be similar to the goniometric measurement accuracy of digital and wrist joint positions. METHODS: The wrist, index finger metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, and index finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint were evaluated in different positions by 40 observers: 20 board-certified hand surgeons and 20 certified hand therapists. Each observer estimated the position of the wrist, index MCP joint, and index PIP joint of the same volunteer, who was positioned in low-profile orthoses to reproduce predetermined positions. Following visual estimation, the participants measured the same joint positions using a goniometer. The control measurement was digitally determined by a radiologist who obtained radiographs of the hand and wrist positions in each orthosis. Observers were blinded to the results of control measurements. RESULTS: When considering all joints at all positions, neither visual assessments nor goniometer assessments were consistently within ± 5° of the measurements obtained on control radiographs. When considering individual joints, goniometer measurements were significantly closer to control radiograph measurements than the visual assessments for all 3 PIP joint positions. There was no difference for the measurements at the wrist or for 2 of the 3 MCP joint positions. Significant differences between surgeon and therapist joint angle measurements were not observed when comparing visual and goniometer assessments to radiograph controls. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with radiograph measurements, neither visual nor goniometer assessment displayed high levels of accuracy. On average, visual assessment of the angular positions of the index MCP and wrist joint were as accurate as the goniometer assessment, whereas goniometer assessment of the angular position of the PIP joint was more accurate than visual assessment. There was a relatively high degree of between-observer variability in measurements, and therefore, no one person's measurements could be consistently relied upon to be accurate. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.
PURPOSE: To compare goniometric and visual assessments of angular hand joint and wrist joint positions measured by board-certified hand surgeons and certified hand therapists. We hypothesized that visual estimation would be similar to the goniometric measurement accuracy of digital and wrist joint positions. METHODS: The wrist, index finger metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, and index finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint were evaluated in different positions by 40 observers: 20 board-certified hand surgeons and 20 certified hand therapists. Each observer estimated the position of the wrist, index MCP joint, and index PIP joint of the same volunteer, who was positioned in low-profile orthoses to reproduce predetermined positions. Following visual estimation, the participants measured the same joint positions using a goniometer. The control measurement was digitally determined by a radiologist who obtained radiographs of the hand and wrist positions in each orthosis. Observers were blinded to the results of control measurements. RESULTS: When considering all joints at all positions, neither visual assessments nor goniometer assessments were consistently within ± 5° of the measurements obtained on control radiographs. When considering individual joints, goniometer measurements were significantly closer to control radiograph measurements than the visual assessments for all 3 PIP joint positions. There was no difference for the measurements at the wrist or for 2 of the 3 MCP joint positions. Significant differences between surgeon and therapist joint angle measurements were not observed when comparing visual and goniometer assessments to radiograph controls. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with radiograph measurements, neither visual nor goniometer assessment displayed high levels of accuracy. On average, visual assessment of the angular positions of the index MCP and wrist joint were as accurate as the goniometer assessment, whereas goniometer assessment of the angular position of the PIP joint was more accurate than visual assessment. There was a relatively high degree of between-observer variability in measurements, and therefore, no one person's measurements could be consistently relied upon to be accurate. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.
Authors: Miranda Yelvington; Matthew Godleski; Austin F Lee; Jeremy Goverman; Ingrid Parry; David N Herndon; Oscar E Suman; Karen Kowalske; Radha Holavanahalli; Nicole S Gibran; Peter C Esselman; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Kostas Nizamis; Noortje H M Rijken; Ana Mendes; Mariska M H P Janssen; Arjen Bergsma; Bart F J M Koopman Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.576