在评估肩关节活动范围方面,数字活动范围测量设备如何 "衡量 "传统动态关节角度计?系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE NOTES AND QUERIES Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1177/17585732231195554
J Shepherd, S Hansjee, P Divall, P Raval, H P Singh
{"title":"在评估肩关节活动范围方面,数字活动范围测量设备如何 \"衡量 \"传统动态关节角度计?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"J Shepherd, S Hansjee, P Divall, P Raval, H P Singh","doi":"10.1177/17585732231195554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shoulder range of motion (ROM) is traditionally measured using universal goniometry. However, novel devices to measure shoulder ROM digitally are becoming increasingly available. We aimed to synthesise the current evidence to answer: 1) what technologies are currently in use? 2) Are they reliable? 3) How do they compare to goniometry?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Emcare and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies comparing a digital device measuring shoulder ROM to goniometry in participants > = 18years. Quality of studies was assessed using COSMIN risk of bias tool. End points included device validity compared to goniometry and intra-rater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 articles were included, representing 372 participants and 608 shoulders, and reporting data for five device categories; infrared/RGB-D, 3D-motion-analysis, combined 3D/infra-red, 2D-video-analysis and virtual-reality. Nine studies reported mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) compared to goniometry. Pooled mean bias was -0.25 degrees (-1.25, 0.75 95% LOA, random effects model) overall. This did not differ by device type (p = 0.83), sensor or non-sensor-based devices (p = 0.62) or plane of movement (p = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These devices compare well to goniometry and represent a possible means of increasing efficiency and facilitating telemedicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":45476,"journal":{"name":"NOTES AND QUERIES","volume":"1 1","pages":"363-381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418675/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do digital range of motion measurement devices 'measure-up' to traditional goniometry in assessing shoulder range of motion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"J Shepherd, S Hansjee, P Divall, P Raval, H P Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17585732231195554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shoulder range of motion (ROM) is traditionally measured using universal goniometry. However, novel devices to measure shoulder ROM digitally are becoming increasingly available. We aimed to synthesise the current evidence to answer: 1) what technologies are currently in use? 2) Are they reliable? 3) How do they compare to goniometry?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Emcare and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies comparing a digital device measuring shoulder ROM to goniometry in participants > = 18years. Quality of studies was assessed using COSMIN risk of bias tool. End points included device validity compared to goniometry and intra-rater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 articles were included, representing 372 participants and 608 shoulders, and reporting data for five device categories; infrared/RGB-D, 3D-motion-analysis, combined 3D/infra-red, 2D-video-analysis and virtual-reality. Nine studies reported mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) compared to goniometry. Pooled mean bias was -0.25 degrees (-1.25, 0.75 95% LOA, random effects model) overall. This did not differ by device type (p = 0.83), sensor or non-sensor-based devices (p = 0.62) or plane of movement (p = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These devices compare well to goniometry and represent a possible means of increasing efficiency and facilitating telemedicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NOTES AND QUERIES\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"363-381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418675/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NOTES AND QUERIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732231195554\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NOTES AND QUERIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732231195554","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肩关节活动范围 (ROM) 传统上使用通用动态关节角度计进行测量。然而,以数字方式测量肩关节活动度的新型设备越来越多。我们的目的是综合目前的证据,回答以下问题1) 目前使用的技术有哪些?2) 它们可靠吗?3)它们与动态关节角度计相比如何?根据 PRISMA 指南对文献进行了系统回顾。检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Emcare 和 Cochrane 数据库,以确定在年龄大于等于 18 岁的参与者中将测量肩关节 ROM 的数字设备与动态关节角度计进行比较的研究。研究质量采用 COSMIN 偏差风险工具进行评估。研究终点包括设备与动态关节角度计的有效性比较以及评分者内部的可靠性:共纳入15篇文章,代表了372名参与者和608个肩部,并报告了五类设备的数据:红外线/RGB-D、三维运动分析、三维/红外线组合、二维视频分析和虚拟现实。九项研究报告了与动态关节角度计相比的平均偏差和 95% 的一致性限值 (LOA)。总体而言,汇总的平均偏差为-0.25度(-1.25,0.75 95% LOA,随机效应模型)。这并不因设备类型(p = 0.83)、传感器或非传感器设备(p = 0.62)或运动平面(p = 0.91)而有所不同:这些设备与动态关节角度计相比效果良好,是提高效率和促进远程医疗的一种可能手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How do digital range of motion measurement devices 'measure-up' to traditional goniometry in assessing shoulder range of motion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) is traditionally measured using universal goniometry. However, novel devices to measure shoulder ROM digitally are becoming increasingly available. We aimed to synthesise the current evidence to answer: 1) what technologies are currently in use? 2) Are they reliable? 3) How do they compare to goniometry?

Methods: Systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Emcare and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies comparing a digital device measuring shoulder ROM to goniometry in participants > = 18years. Quality of studies was assessed using COSMIN risk of bias tool. End points included device validity compared to goniometry and intra-rater reliability.

Results: 15 articles were included, representing 372 participants and 608 shoulders, and reporting data for five device categories; infrared/RGB-D, 3D-motion-analysis, combined 3D/infra-red, 2D-video-analysis and virtual-reality. Nine studies reported mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) compared to goniometry. Pooled mean bias was -0.25 degrees (-1.25, 0.75 95% LOA, random effects model) overall. This did not differ by device type (p = 0.83), sensor or non-sensor-based devices (p = 0.62) or plane of movement (p = 0.91).

Conclusions: These devices compare well to goniometry and represent a possible means of increasing efficiency and facilitating telemedicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NOTES AND QUERIES
NOTES AND QUERIES LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Founded under the editorship of the antiquary W J Thoms, the primary intention of Notes and Queries was, and still remains, the asking and answering of readers" questions. It is devoted principally to English language and literature, lexicography, history, and scholarly antiquarianism. Each issue focuses on the works of a particular period, with an emphasis on the factual rather than the speculative. The journal comprises notes, book reviews, readers" queries and replies.
期刊最新文献
Low and high body mass index and lower numbers of screws in the articular segment are risk factors for non-union of distal humeral fractures in the elderly: A multi-center retrospective study (TRON study). How do digital range of motion measurement devices 'measure-up' to traditional goniometry in assessing shoulder range of motion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Corrigendum to "A Review of 13470 Head and Neck Injuries From Trampoline Jumping". Exploring the Relationship Between Anticipated Stigma and Community Shared Concerns about HIV on Defaulting from HIV Care in Rural South Africa. From Institutions to Inclusion: How Children with Disabilities Gained Educational Rights in the U.S.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1