Calvin T F Tse1,2, Jesse M Charlton1,2, Jennifer Lam3, Joanne Ho3, Jessica Bears3, Amanda Serek3, Michael A Hunt2,3. 1. Graduate Programs in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Motion Analysis and Biofeedback Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Frontal plane knee alignment plays an integral role in tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis development and progression. Accessible methods for obtaining direct or indirect measures of knee alignment may help inform clinical decision making when specialized equipment is unavailable. The present study evaluated the concurrent validity, as well as intersession (within-rater) and interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry for measuring static frontal plane tibial alignment-a known proxy of frontal plane knee alignment. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals and 38 patients with knee osteoarthritis were measured for frontal plane tibial alignment by a pair of raters using smartphone inclinometry, manual inclinometry, and 3-dimensional motion capture simultaneously. Healthy participants were measured on 2 separate days. Bland-Altman analysis, supplemented with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(2,k), was used to assess concurrent validity. ICC(2,k), SEM, and minimum detectable change with 95% confidence limits (MDC95) were used to assess measurement reliability. RESULTS: Compared against motion capture, smartphone inclinometry measured frontal plane tibial alignment with a mean difference of 0.7 and 1.1 degrees (biased toward varus) for healthy participants and participants with knee osteoarthritis, respectively (ICC[2,k] ≥ 0.87). Smartphone inclinometry measurements demonstrated adequate intersession (within-rater) relative (ICC[2,k] = 0.91) and absolute (SEM = 0.7 degrees; MDC95 = 1.8 degrees) reliability, which outperformed manual inclinometry (ICC[2,k] = 0.85; SEM = 1.0 degrees; MDC95 = 2.6 degrees). Interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry was acceptable in both cohorts (ICC[2,k] = 0.93; SEM = 0.4 degrees to 1.2 degrees; MDC95 = 1.2 degrees to 3.2 degrees). CONCLUSION: Smartphone inclinometry is sufficiently valid and reliable for measuring frontal plane tibial alignment in healthy individuals and patients with medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis. IMPACT: Smartphones are readily accessible by clinicians and researchers. Our assessment of measurement validity and reliability supports the use of smartphone inclinometry as a clinically available tool to measure frontal plane tibial alignment without medical imaging or specialized equipment.
OBJECTIVE: Frontal plane knee alignment plays an integral role in tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis development and progression. Accessible methods for obtaining direct or indirect measures of knee alignment may help inform clinical decision making when specialized equipment is unavailable. The present study evaluated the concurrent validity, as well as intersession (within-rater) and interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry for measuring static frontal plane tibial alignment-a known proxy of frontal plane knee alignment. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals and 38 patients with knee osteoarthritis were measured for frontal plane tibial alignment by a pair of raters using smartphone inclinometry, manual inclinometry, and 3-dimensional motion capture simultaneously. Healthy participants were measured on 2 separate days. Bland-Altman analysis, supplemented with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(2,k), was used to assess concurrent validity. ICC(2,k), SEM, and minimum detectable change with 95% confidence limits (MDC95) were used to assess measurement reliability. RESULTS: Compared against motion capture, smartphone inclinometry measured frontal plane tibial alignment with a mean difference of 0.7 and 1.1 degrees (biased toward varus) for healthy participants and participants with knee osteoarthritis, respectively (ICC[2,k] ≥ 0.87). Smartphone inclinometry measurements demonstrated adequate intersession (within-rater) relative (ICC[2,k] = 0.91) and absolute (SEM = 0.7 degrees; MDC95 = 1.8 degrees) reliability, which outperformed manual inclinometry (ICC[2,k] = 0.85; SEM = 1.0 degrees; MDC95 = 2.6 degrees). Interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry was acceptable in both cohorts (ICC[2,k] = 0.93; SEM = 0.4 degrees to 1.2 degrees; MDC95 = 1.2 degrees to 3.2 degrees). CONCLUSION: Smartphone inclinometry is sufficiently valid and reliable for measuring frontal plane tibial alignment in healthy individuals and patients with medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis. IMPACT: Smartphones are readily accessible by clinicians and researchers. Our assessment of measurement validity and reliability supports the use of smartphone inclinometry as a clinically available tool to measure frontal plane tibial alignment without medical imaging or specialized equipment.
Authors: Steven Milanese; Susan Gordon; Petra Buettner; Carol Flavell; Sally Ruston; Damien Coe; William O'Sullivan; Steven McCormack Journal: Man Ther Date: 2014-06-04
Authors: Kim L Bennell; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Yuanyuan Wang; Flavia Cicuttini; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Rana S Hinman Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Leena Sharma; Jing Song; Dorothy Dunlop; David Felson; Cora E Lewis; Neil Segal; James Torner; T Derek V Cooke; Jean Hietpas; John Lynch; Michael Nevitt Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Brandon T Nguyen; Nick A Baicoianu; Darrin B Howell; Keshia M Peters; Katherine M Steele Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Justin W L Keogh; Alistair Cox; Sarah Anderson; Bernard Liew; Alicia Olsen; Ben Schram; James Furness Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240