Angie Rondoni1, Giacomo Rossettini1, Diego Ristori1, Fabio Gallo2, Marco Strobe1, Federico Giaretta3, Andrea Battistin4, Marco Testa5. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova-Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. 3. Private practice, Verona, Italy. 4. Private practice, Vicenza, Italy. 5. Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova-Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy. Electronic address: marco.testa@unige.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare intrarater and inter-rater reliability of active cervical range of motion (ACROM) measures obtained with technological devices to those assessed with low-cost devices in patients with nonspecific neck pain. As a secondary outcome, we investigated if ACROM reliability is influenced by the plane of the assessed movement. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PEDro, and gray literature were searched until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were reliability design, population of adults with nonspecific neck pain, examiners of any level of experience, measures repeated at least twice, and statistical indexes on reliability. A device was considered inexpensive if it cost less than €500. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed by Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 35 151 records. Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. Their Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies mean score was 3.7 of 11. No significant effect of the type of device (inexpensive vs expensive) on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was identified for intrarater (ICC = 0.93 vs 0.91; P > .99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.80 vs 0.87; P > .99). The plane of movement did not affect inter-rater reliability (P = .11). Significant influences were identified with intrarater reliability (P = .0001) of inexpensive devices, where intrarater reliability decreased (P = .01) in side bending, compared with flexion-extension. CONCLUSIONS: The use of expensive devices to measure ACROM in adults with nonspecific neck pain does not seem to improve the reliability of the assessment. Side bending had a lower level of intrarater reliability.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare intrarater and inter-rater reliability of active cervical range of motion (ACROM) measures obtained with technological devices to those assessed with low-cost devices in patients with nonspecific neck pain. As a secondary outcome, we investigated if ACROM reliability is influenced by the plane of the assessed movement. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PEDro, and gray literature were searched until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were reliability design, population of adults with nonspecific neck pain, examiners of any level of experience, measures repeated at least twice, and statistical indexes on reliability. A device was considered inexpensive if it cost less than €500. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed by Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 35 151 records. Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. Their Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies mean score was 3.7 of 11. No significant effect of the type of device (inexpensive vs expensive) on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was identified for intrarater (ICC = 0.93 vs 0.91; P > .99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.80 vs 0.87; P > .99). The plane of movement did not affect inter-rater reliability (P = .11). Significant influences were identified with intrarater reliability (P = .0001) of inexpensive devices, where intrarater reliability decreased (P = .01) in side bending, compared with flexion-extension. CONCLUSIONS: The use of expensive devices to measure ACROM in adults with nonspecific neck pain does not seem to improve the reliability of the assessment. Side bending had a lower level of intrarater reliability.
Authors: Giacomo Rossettini; Andrea Colombi; Elisa Carlino; Mattia Manoni; Mattia Mirandola; Andrea Polli; Eleonora Maria Camerone; Marco Testa Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-03-16