For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
47
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      117
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity and reliability of Veloflex to measure active cervical range of motion in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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

          Neck pain has a high annual incidence and decreases the cervical active range of motion (ROM). Clinicians use various methods to evaluate cervical range of motion (CROM) that some of them have also been proposed to give instant feedback. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of Veloflex (VF) to measure the CROM by comparison with the cervical range of motion (CROM) device, and to examine their test-retest reliability.

          Methods

          Thirty-eight healthy and 20 symptomatic participants were evaluated. Cervical flexion-extension, side bending, and rotations were tested in two sessions, first by the CROM and VF and in the second only with the VF. To evaluate the concurrent validity and agreement between CROM and VF, Pearson correlation coefficient ( r) and Bland–Altmann plots were used. Reliability were evaluated using intra-class correlation (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC).

          Results

          CROM and VF showed excellent correlation for all movements ( r > 0.960). Both devices provided small mean ‘bias’ (≤1.29%) in all movements regarding CROM measures. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the VF was excellent (ICC > 0.98). SEMs ranging from 0.72% to 2.38% and the MDC ranging from 1.22° to 2.60° in all participants. The results support the validity and reliability of VF to measure CROM. For its use, with a basic training is enough to get reliable measurements.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Understanding Bland Altman analysis

          Davide Giavarina (2015)
          In a contemporary clinical laboratory it is very common to have to assess the agreement between two quantitative methods of measurement. The correct statistical approach to assess this degree of agreement is not obvious. Correlation and regression studies are frequently proposed. However, correlation studies the relationship between one variable and another, not the differences, and it is not recommended as a method for assessing the comparability between methods.
In 1983 Altman and Bland (B&A) proposed an alternative analysis, based on the quantification of the agreement between two quantitative measurements by studying the mean difference and constructing limits of agreement.
The B&A plot analysis is a simple way to evaluate a bias between the mean differences, and to estimate an agreement interval, within which 95% of the differences of the second method, compared to the first one, fall. Data can be analyzed both as unit differences plot and as percentage differences plot.
The B&A plot method only defines the intervals of agreements, it does not say whether those limits are acceptable or not. Acceptable limits must be defined a priori, based on clinical necessity, biological considerations or other goals.
The aim of this article is to provide guidance on the use and interpretation of Bland Altman analysis in method comparison studies.
          Article 0 comments Cited 713 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential

            Joseph H Abramson (2011)
            Background The WINPEPI computer programs for epidemiologists are designed for use in practice and research in the health field and as learning or teaching aids. The programs are free, and can be downloaded from the Internet. Numerous additions have been made in recent years. Implementation There are now seven WINPEPI programs: DESCRIBE, for use in descriptive epidemiology; COMPARE2, for use in comparisons of two independent groups or samples; PAIRSetc, for use in comparisons of paired and other matched observations; LOGISTIC, for logistic regression analysis; POISSON, for Poisson regression analysis; WHATIS, a "ready reckoner" utility program; and ETCETERA, for miscellaneous other procedures. The programs now contain 122 modules, each of which provides a number, sometimes a large number, of statistical procedures. The programs are accompanied by a Finder that indicates which modules are appropriate for different purposes. The manuals explain the uses, limitations and applicability of the procedures, and furnish formulae and references. Conclusions WINPEPI is a handy resource for a wide variety of statistical routines used by epidemiologists. Because of its ready availability, portability, ease of use, and versatility, WINPEPI has a considerable potential as a learning and teaching aid, both with respect to practical procedures in the planning and analysis of epidemiological studies, and with respect to important epidemiological concepts. It can also be used as an aid in the teaching of general basic statistics.
            Article 0 comments Cited 237 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The epidemiology of neck pain.

              D. G. Hoy, M Protani, R. De … (2010)
              Neck pain is becoming increasingly common throughout the world. It has a considerable impact on individuals and their families, communities, health-care systems, and businesses. There is substantial heterogeneity between neck pain epidemiological studies, which makes it difficult to compare or pool data from different studies. The estimated 1 year incidence of neck pain from available studies ranges between 10.4% and 21.3% with a higher incidence noted in office and computer workers. While some studies report that between 33% and 65% of people have recovered from an episode of neck pain at 1 year, most cases run an episodic course over a person's lifetime and, thus, relapses are common. The overall prevalence of neck pain in the general population ranges between 0.4% and 86.8% (mean: 23.1%); point prevalence ranges from 0.4% to 41.5% (mean: 14.4%); and 1 year prevalence ranges from 4.8% to 79.5% (mean: 25.8%). Prevalence is generally higher in women, higher in high-income countries compared with low- and middle-income countries and higher in urban areas compared with rural areas. Many environmental and personal factors influence the onset and course of neck pain. Most studies indicate a higher incidence of neck pain among women and an increased risk of developing neck pain until the 35-49-year age group, after which the risk begins to decline. The Global Burden of Disease 2005 Study is currently making estimates of the global burden of neck pain in relation to impairment and activity limitation, and results will be available in 2011. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 205 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Rodrigo Martín-San Agustín:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8201-0189
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): PeerJ
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PeerJ
                Journal ID (pmc): PeerJ
                Journal ID (publisher-id): PeerJ
                Title: PeerJ
                Publisher: PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2167-8359
                Publication date (Electronic): 5 April 2021
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Volume: 9
                Electronic Location Identifier: e11228
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physiotherapy, University of Murcia , Murcia, Spain
                [2 ]Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia , Valencia, Spain
                [3 ]Department of Electromagnetism and Electronics, University of Murcia , Murcia, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-5407
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3063-2693
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8201-0189
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1416-5493
                Article
                Publisher ID: 11228
                DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11228
                PMC ID: 8029663
                SO-VID: 602954fc-e27c-47ea-951f-42966938217d
                Copyright © © 2021 Cánovas-Ambit et al.
                License:

                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
                Date received : 26 November 2020
                Date accepted : 16 March 2021
                Funding
                The authors received no funding for this work.
                Categories
                Subject: Anesthesiology and Pain Management
                Subject: Anatomy and Physiology
                Subject: Drugs and Devices
                Subject: Kinesiology
                Subject: Orthopedics

                Keywords: cervical,range of motion,validity/reliability,optoelectronic device
                Data availability:
                Keywords: cervical, range of motion, validity/reliability, optoelectronic device

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content117

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors581

                See all reference authors