We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Variance in the measurement of sagittal lumbar spine range of motion among examiners, subjects, and instruments.
Spine 1995 July 2
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measurements were made of lumbar sagittal range of motion by 14 examiners using three different measurement instruments.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of lumbar range of motion measurements among examiners, subjects, and instruments, and to determine whether variance is due to subject inconsistency, examiner inconsistency, differences between examiners, or differences between instruments.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Measurements of lumbar spine range of motion are widely used in research and clinical applications as well as in disability rating systems for patients with low back pain.
METHODS: Fourteen examiners measured the sagittal range of motion. Using three instruments, 18 healthy subjects were measured twice in a randomized sequence with blinded readings when performing full flexion, and partial flexion to a defined midpoint. None of the examiners routinely used the particular instruments in their practices.
RESULTS: The mean test-retest reliability was 4.9 degrees. The intraexaminer reliability did not differ significantly among the examiners. Furthermore, there was no systematic difference resulting from instruments or posture condition. However, there was a statistically significant variance among examiners--i.e., a poor interexaminer reliability.
CONCLUSION: The most likely explanation for these findings is the variability among examiners in locating bony landmarks. The results indicate that range of motion measurements must be interpreted with caution in clinical, research, and disability applications. Test administrator training may improve results, but this could not be determined from this study.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of lumbar range of motion measurements among examiners, subjects, and instruments, and to determine whether variance is due to subject inconsistency, examiner inconsistency, differences between examiners, or differences between instruments.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Measurements of lumbar spine range of motion are widely used in research and clinical applications as well as in disability rating systems for patients with low back pain.
METHODS: Fourteen examiners measured the sagittal range of motion. Using three instruments, 18 healthy subjects were measured twice in a randomized sequence with blinded readings when performing full flexion, and partial flexion to a defined midpoint. None of the examiners routinely used the particular instruments in their practices.
RESULTS: The mean test-retest reliability was 4.9 degrees. The intraexaminer reliability did not differ significantly among the examiners. Furthermore, there was no systematic difference resulting from instruments or posture condition. However, there was a statistically significant variance among examiners--i.e., a poor interexaminer reliability.
CONCLUSION: The most likely explanation for these findings is the variability among examiners in locating bony landmarks. The results indicate that range of motion measurements must be interpreted with caution in clinical, research, and disability applications. Test administrator training may improve results, but this could not be determined from this study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app