Minimal detectable difference of the finger and wrist range of motion: comparison of goniometry and 3D motion analysis.
3D motion capture
Manual goniometer
Minimal detectable difference
Motion analysis
Range of motion
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jun 2019
10 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
05
01
2019
accepted:
30
04
2019
entrez:
12
6
2019
pubmed:
12
6
2019
medline:
25
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The measurement of finger and wrist range of motion (ROM) is of great importance to clinicians when assessing functional outcomes of therapeutic interventions and surgical procedures. The purpose of the study was to assess the repeatability of ROM measurements of the hand joints with manual goniometer and 3D motion capture system and to calculate the minimal detectable difference for both methods. Active finger and wrist joints ROM of 20 healthy volunteers were assessed using a manual goniometer and 3D motion capture system. Minimal detectable difference (MDD) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated for both measurement systems and compared within the same task. Maximal ROM of all joints was registered twice on two different days to evaluate the test-retest repeatability. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was calculated and examined to determine if reliability ≥ 0.70 existed. MDD for the 3D motion capture was between 5 and 12° except for the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCP) 1, interphalangeal joint (IP), and MCP5. SEM values lay between 2 and 4° for all joints except for the MCP5, IP, and MCP1. For the goniometric measurements, MDD and SEM were between 12-30° and 4-11°, respectively. The reliability criterion (ICC > 0.7) was achieved for the ROM measurement with the 3D motion capture system for 94% of the joints and in only 65% of the joints with the manual goniometer. Joint ROM assessed with 3D motion analysis showed higher test-retest agreement demonstrating overall better repeatability for this method. Because of the smaller measurement error, the 3D motion capture system has a smaller MDD. Only individual test-rest differences bigger than the MDD can be considered as real changes, and therefore, in an experimental situation, the use of a more precise measurement method can greatly reduce the number of subjects needed for a statistical significance. Goniometer measurements of some joints should be carefully interpreted, due to a low repeatability and reliability. This study is approved by the Ethical Committee Zurich ( Kek-ZH-Nr: 2015-0395 ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The measurement of finger and wrist range of motion (ROM) is of great importance to clinicians when assessing functional outcomes of therapeutic interventions and surgical procedures. The purpose of the study was to assess the repeatability of ROM measurements of the hand joints with manual goniometer and 3D motion capture system and to calculate the minimal detectable difference for both methods.
METHODS
METHODS
Active finger and wrist joints ROM of 20 healthy volunteers were assessed using a manual goniometer and 3D motion capture system. Minimal detectable difference (MDD) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated for both measurement systems and compared within the same task. Maximal ROM of all joints was registered twice on two different days to evaluate the test-retest repeatability. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was calculated and examined to determine if reliability ≥ 0.70 existed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
MDD for the 3D motion capture was between 5 and 12° except for the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCP) 1, interphalangeal joint (IP), and MCP5. SEM values lay between 2 and 4° for all joints except for the MCP5, IP, and MCP1. For the goniometric measurements, MDD and SEM were between 12-30° and 4-11°, respectively. The reliability criterion (ICC > 0.7) was achieved for the ROM measurement with the 3D motion capture system for 94% of the joints and in only 65% of the joints with the manual goniometer.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Joint ROM assessed with 3D motion analysis showed higher test-retest agreement demonstrating overall better repeatability for this method. Because of the smaller measurement error, the 3D motion capture system has a smaller MDD. Only individual test-rest differences bigger than the MDD can be considered as real changes, and therefore, in an experimental situation, the use of a more precise measurement method can greatly reduce the number of subjects needed for a statistical significance. Goniometer measurements of some joints should be carefully interpreted, due to a low repeatability and reliability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This study is approved by the Ethical Committee Zurich ( Kek-ZH-Nr: 2015-0395 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31182129
doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1177-y
pii: 10.1186/s13018-019-1177-y
pmc: PMC6558857
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
173Références
J Biomech. 1999 Jun;32(6):615-21
pubmed: 10332626
J Biomech. 1999 Dec;32(12):1337-41
pubmed: 10569712
J Hand Ther. 2001 Jan-Mar;14(1):18-22
pubmed: 11243554
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995 Jun;10(4):171-178
pubmed: 11415549
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1996 Mar;11(2):90-100
pubmed: 11415604
Clin Rehabil. 2002 Aug;16(5):562-70
pubmed: 12194627
J Biomech. 2002 Nov;35(11):1499-506
pubmed: 12413969
Surg Radiol Anat. 2005 Mar;27(1):43-50
pubmed: 15316760
Gait Posture. 2005 Feb;21(2):212-25
pubmed: 15639400
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40
pubmed: 15705040
J Biomech. 2005 May;38(5):981-992
pubmed: 15844264
Eura Medicophys. 2006 Mar;42(1):37-40
pubmed: 16565684
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9
pubmed: 16980142
J Appl Biomech. 2007 Feb;23(1):70-8
pubmed: 17585179
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008 Mar;55(3):1199-210
pubmed: 18334414
Physiother Theory Pract. 2009 Feb;25(2):145-64
pubmed: 19212902
Gait Posture. 2010 Oct;32(4):469-74
pubmed: 20678936
Am J Occup Ther. 2010 Jul-Aug;64(4):555-61
pubmed: 20825126
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990 Fall;27(4):411-24
pubmed: 2089151
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2011 May;58(5):1224-31
pubmed: 21233039
Am J Occup Ther. 2012 Jan-Feb;66(1):98-103
pubmed: 22389944
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jun;27(6):1529-38
pubmed: 22990570
Am J Occup Ther. 1990 Apr;44(4):342-8
pubmed: 2330964
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2014 Feb;228(2):182-9
pubmed: 24503512
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Jan;31:47-58
pubmed: 26490639
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1986;18(1):5-7
pubmed: 3715428
Phys Ther. 1969 May;49(5):465-9
pubmed: 5804302
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984 Feb;65(2):92-4
pubmed: 6696609
J Biomech Eng. 1983 May;105(2):136-44
pubmed: 6865355
Phys Ther. 1978 Nov;58(11):1355-60
pubmed: 704684
Phys Ther. 1994 Feb;74(2):162-74; discussion 174-6
pubmed: 8290621
Phys Ther. 1997 Jul;77(7):745-50
pubmed: 9225846
Clin Rehabil. 1997 Nov;11(4):314-20
pubmed: 9408672
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Nov-Dec;7(6):573-80
pubmed: 9883416
J Hand Surg Br. 1998 Dec;23(6):788-91
pubmed: 9888683