Objective assessment, repeatability, and agreement of shoulder ROM with a 3D gyroscope
- PMID: 23442604
- PMCID: PMC3614536
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-72
Objective assessment, repeatability, and agreement of shoulder ROM with a 3D gyroscope
Abstract
Background: Assessment of shoulder mobility is essential for diagnosis and clinical follow-up of shoulder diseases. Only a few highly sophisticated instruments for objective measurements of shoulder mobility are available. The recently introduced DynaPort MiniMod TriGyro ShoulderTest-System (DP) was validated earlier in laboratory trials. We aimed to assess the precision (repeatability) and agreement of this instrument in human subjects, as compared to the conventional goniometer.
Methods: The DP is a small, light-weight, three-dimensional gyroscope that can be fixed on the distal upper arm, recording shoulder abduction, flexion, and rotation. Twenty-one subjects (42 shoulders) were included for analysis. Two subsequent assessments of the same subject with a 30-minute delay in testing of each shoulder were performed with the DP in two directions (flexion and abduction), and simultaneously correlated with the measurements of a conventional goniometer. All assessments were performed by one observer. Repeatability for each method was determined and compared as the statistical variance between two repeated measurements. Agreement was illustrated by Bland-Altman-Plots with 95% limits of agreement. Statistical analysis was performed with a linear mixed regression model. Variance for repeated measurements by the same method was also estimated and compared with the likelihood-ratio test.
Results: Evaluation of abduction showed significantly better repeatability for the DP compared to the conventional goniometer (error variance: DP = 0.89, goniometer = 8.58, p = 0.025). No significant differences were found for flexion (DP = 1.52, goniometer = 5.94, p = 0.09). Agreement assessment was performed for flexion for mean differences of 0.27° with 95% limit of agreement ranging from -7.97° to 8.51°. For abduction, the mean differences were 1.19° with a 95% limit of agreement ranging from -9.07° to 11.46°.
Conclusion: In summary, DP demonstrated a high precision even higher than the conventional goniometer. Agreement between both methods is acceptable, with possible deviations of up to greater than 10°. Therefore, static measurements with DP are more precise than conventional goniometer measurements. These results are promising for routine clinical use of the DP.
Figures





Similar articles
-
Objective assessment of shoulder mobility with a new 3D gyroscope--a validation study.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Jul 21;12:168. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-168. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011. PMID: 21777447 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Assessment of Shoulder Range of Motion Using a Wireless Inertial Motion Capture Device-A Validation Study.Sensors (Basel). 2019 Apr 13;19(8):1781. doi: 10.3390/s19081781. Sensors (Basel). 2019. PMID: 31013931 Free PMC article.
-
Validity and reliability of arm abduction angle measured on smartphone: a cross-sectional study.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Feb 20;17:93. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0957-3. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016. PMID: 26897035 Free PMC article.
-
Reliability of shoulder range of motion comparing a goniometer to a digital level.Physiother Theory Pract. 2010 Jul;26(5):327-33. doi: 10.3109/09593980903094230. Physiother Theory Pract. 2010. PMID: 20557263
-
Intratester and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for active knee flexion in healthy subjects.Physiother Res Int. 1997;2(3):150-66. doi: 10.1002/pri.97. Physiother Res Int. 1997. PMID: 9421820 Review.
Cited by
-
Validation of the Perception Neuron system for full-body motion capture.PLoS One. 2022 Jan 21;17(1):e0262730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262730. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35061781 Free PMC article.
-
Measurement of Shoulder Abduction Angle with Posture Estimation Artificial Intelligence Model.Sensors (Basel). 2023 Jul 16;23(14):6445. doi: 10.3390/s23146445. Sensors (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37514738 Free PMC article.
-
Studying Upper-Limb Kinematics Using Inertial Sensors Embedded in Mobile Phones.JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015 May 20;2(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/rehab.4101. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015. PMID: 28582241 Free PMC article.
-
Can a physical activity monitor provide a valid measure of arm elevation angle? A study to assess agreement between the SenseWear Mini Armband and the universal goniometer.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Mar 3;16:46. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0507-4. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015. PMID: 25886361 Free PMC article.
-
A Movement Monitor Based on Magneto-Inertial Sensors for Non-Ambulant Patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Pilot Study in Controlled Environment.PLoS One. 2016 Jun 7;11(6):e0156696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156696. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27271157 Free PMC article.
References
-
- de Winter AF, Heemskerk MA, Terwee CB, Jans MP, Deville W, van Schaardenburg DJ, Scholten RJ, Bouter LM. Inter-observer reproducibility of measurements of range of motion in patients with shoulder pain using a digital inclinometer. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2004;5:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-5-18. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources