9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity and reliability of inertial sensors for elbow and wrist range of motion assessment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Elbow and wrist chronic conditions are very common among musculoskeletal problems. These painful conditions affect muscle function, which ultimately leads to a decrease in the joint’s Range Of Motion (ROM). Due to their portability and ease of use, goniometers are still the most widespread tool for measuring ROM. Inertial sensors are emerging as a digital, low-cost and accurate alternative. However, whereas inertial sensors are commonly used in research studies, due to the lack of information about their validity and reliability, they are not widely used in the clinical practice. The goal of this study is to assess the validity and intra-inter-rater reliability of inertial sensors for measuring active ROM of the elbow and wrist.

          Materials and Methods

          Measures were taken simultaneously with inertial sensors (Werium system) and a universal goniometer. The process involved two physiotherapists (“rater A” and “rater B”) and an engineer responsible for the technical issues. Twenty-nine asymptomatic subjects were assessed individually in two sessions separated by 48 h. The procedure was repeated by rater A followed by rater B with random order. Three repetitions of each active movement (elbow flexion, pronation, and supination; and wrist flexion, extension, radial deviation and ulnar deviation) were executed starting from the neutral position until the ROM end-feel; that is, until ROM reached its maximum due to be stopped by the anatomy. The coefficient of determination ( r 2) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were calculated to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. The Standard Error of the Measurement and the Minimum Detectable Change and a Bland–Altman plots were also calculated.

          Results

          Similar ROM values when measured with both instruments were obtained for the elbow (maximum difference of 3° for all the movements) and wrist (maximum difference of 1° for all the movements). These values were within the normal range when compared to literature studies. The concurrent validity analysis for all the movements yielded ICC values ≥0.78 for the elbow and ≥0.95 for the wrist. Concerning reliability, the ICC values denoted a high reliability of inertial sensors for all the different movements. In the case of the elbow, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability ICC values range from 0.83 to 0.96 and from 0.94 to 0.97, respectively. Intra-rater analysis of the wrist yielded ICC values between 0.81 and 0.93, while the ICC values for the inter-rater analysis range from 0.93 to 0.99.

          Conclusions

          Inertial sensors are a valid and reliable tool for measuring elbow and wrist active ROM. Particularly noteworthy is their high inter-rater reliability, often questioned in measurement tools. The lowest reliability is observed in elbow prono-supination, probably due to skin artifacts. Based on these results and their advantages, inertial sensors can be considered a valid assessment tool for wrist and elbow ROM.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Trends Supporting the In-Field Use of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Sport Performance Evaluation: A Systematic Review

          Recent technological developments have led to the production of inexpensive, non-invasive, miniature magneto-inertial sensors, ideal for obtaining sport performance measures during training or competition. This systematic review evaluates current evidence and the future potential of their use in sport performance evaluation. Articles published in English (April 2017) were searched in Web-of-Science, Scopus, Pubmed, and Sport-Discus databases. A keyword search of titles, abstracts and keywords which included studies using accelerometers, gyroscopes and/or magnetometers to analyse sport motor-tasks performed by athletes (excluding risk of injury, physical activity, and energy expenditure) resulted in 2040 papers. Papers and reference list screening led to the selection of 286 studies and 23 reviews. Information on sport, motor-tasks, participants, device characteristics, sensor position and fixing, experimental setting and performance indicators was extracted. The selected papers dealt with motor capacity assessment (51 papers), technique analysis (163), activity classification (19), and physical demands assessment (61). Focus was placed mainly on elite and sub-elite athletes (59%) performing their sport in-field during training (62%) and competition (7%). Measuring movement outdoors created opportunities in winter sports (8%), water sports (16%), team sports (25%), and other outdoor activities (27%). Indications on the reliability of sensor-based performance indicators are provided, together with critical considerations and future trends.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical measurement of range of motion. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity.

            Clinical measurement of range of motion is a fundamental evaluation procedure with ubiquitous application in physical therapy. Objective measurements of ROM and correct interpretation of the measurement results can have a substantial impact on the development of the scientific basis of therapeutic interventions. The purpose of this article is to review the related literature on the reliability and validity of goniometric measurements of the extremities. Special emphasis is placed on how the reliability of goniometry is influenced by instrumentation and procedures, differences among joint actions and body regions, passive versus active measurements, intratester versus intertester measurements, and different patient types. Our discussion of validity encourages objective interpretation of the meaning of ROM measurements in light of the purposes and the limitations of goniometry. We conclude that clinicians should adopt standardized methods of testing and should interpret and report goniometric results as ROM measurements only, not as measurements of factors that may affect ROM.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis.

              The potential of inertial measurement units (IMUs) for ergonomics applications appears promising. However, previous IMUs validation studies have been incomplete regarding aspects of joints analysed, complexity of movements and duration of trials. The objective was to determine the technological error and biomechanical model differences between IMUs and an optoelectronic system and evaluate the effect of task complexity and duration. Whole-body kinematics from 12 participants was recorded simultaneously with a full-body Xsens system where an Optotrak cluster was fixed on every IMU. Short functional movements and long manual material handling tasks were performed and joint angles were compared between the two systems. The differences attributed to the biomechanical model showed significantly greater (P ≤ .001) RMSE than the technological error. RMSE was systematically higher (P ≤ .001) for the long complex task with a mean on all joints of 2.8° compared to 1.2° during short functional movements. Definition of local coordinate systems based on anatomical landmarks or single posture was the most influent difference between the two systems. Additionally, IMUs accuracy was affected by the complexity and duration of the tasks. Nevertheless, technological error remained under 5° RMSE during handling tasks, which shows potential to track workers during their daily labour.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                11 August 2020
                2020
                : 8
                : e9687
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad San Pablo-CEU, CEU Universities , Madrid, Spain
                [2 ]Werium Assistive Solutions Ltd. , Madrid, Spain
                [3 ]Motion in Brains Research Group, Neuroscience and Motion Science Institute, The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) , Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid , Madrid, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4568-2933
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7367-2551
                Article
                9687
                10.7717/peerj.9687
                7427560
                32864213
                951457dd-e380-492c-acfb-5934e7c84219
                © 2020 Costa et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 26 February 2020
                : 18 July 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain
                Award ID: RTI2018-095324-B-I00, RTI2018-097122-A-I00 and IDI-20191120
                Funded by: European Regional Development Fund of the European Commission
                This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of Spain grant numbers RTI2018-095324-B-I00, RTI2018-097122-A-I00 and IDI-20191120 and by the European Regional Development Fund of the European Commission. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Bioengineering
                Anatomy and Physiology
                Clinical Trials
                Kinesiology
                Orthopedics

                inertial sensors,range of motion,joint assessment,goniometer,reliability,elbow joint,wrist joint

                Comments

                Comment on this article