OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliabilities of the cervical range-of-motion (CROM) device and a dual digital inclinometer (as accepted clinical tools) and iPhone or Android smartphone applications (clinometer and compass; as new technologies) in measuring cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain. METHODS: Twenty participants (13 women, 7 men; age 19-33 years) with neck pain persisting for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Neck movements were measured in each participant using 4 noninvasive devices in random order. RESULTS: The CROM device showed excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities in assessing cervical range of motion except in right rotation for which it showed moderate intrarater reliability. The dual digital inclinometer demonstrated moderate to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Cervical range of motion measurements using iPhone applications showed good to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities, whereas Android applications had poor to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Based on the validity results, all assessment tools differed from the CROM device depending on the direction of movement, although the iPhone applications showed fewer differences than the other 2 devices. CONCLUSION: Generally, the CROM device showed the highest reproducibility, and iPhone applications showed more acceptable intra- and interrater reliabilities than the digital inclinometer and Android applications. The clinometer application of smartphones could be reliable in measuring frontal and sagittal cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain and in a sitting position. However, the compass application of the iPhone showed acceptable results, whereas that of the Android device could not be recommended for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliabilities of the cervical range-of-motion (CROM) device and a dual digital inclinometer (as accepted clinical tools) and iPhone or Android smartphone applications (clinometer and compass; as new technologies) in measuring cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain. METHODS: Twenty participants (13 women, 7 men; age 19-33 years) with neck pain persisting for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Neck movements were measured in each participant using 4 noninvasive devices in random order. RESULTS: The CROM device showed excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities in assessing cervical range of motion except in right rotation for which it showed moderate intrarater reliability. The dual digital inclinometer demonstrated moderate to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Cervical range of motion measurements using iPhone applications showed good to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities, whereas Android applications had poor to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Based on the validity results, all assessment tools differed from the CROM device depending on the direction of movement, although the iPhone applications showed fewer differences than the other 2 devices. CONCLUSION: Generally, the CROM device showed the highest reproducibility, and iPhone applications showed more acceptable intra- and interrater reliabilities than the digital inclinometer and Android applications. The clinometer application of smartphones could be reliable in measuring frontal and sagittal cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain and in a sitting position. However, the compass application of the iPhone showed acceptable results, whereas that of the Android device could not be recommended for clinical use.
Authors: Alejandro Caña-Pino; Luís Espejo-Antúnez; José Carmelo Adsuar; María Dolores Apolo-Arenas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390