远程医疗测量手指活动度不同方法的比较。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.018
Kory Bettencourt MS , Ingrid Parry MS , Miranda Yelvington MS , Sandra Taylor PhD , David Greenhalgh MD , Michelle A. James MD
{"title":"远程医疗测量手指活动度不同方法的比较。","authors":"Kory Bettencourt MS ,&nbsp;Ingrid Parry MS ,&nbsp;Miranda Yelvington MS ,&nbsp;Sandra Taylor PhD ,&nbsp;David Greenhalgh MD ,&nbsp;Michelle A. James MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study examined the accuracy and reliability of measuring total motion of the fingers via telehealth<span> using the following three different methods: (1) goniometry, (2) visual estimation, and (3) electronic protractor. Measurements were compared with in-person measurement, which was assumed to be the reference standard.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>Thirty clinicians measured finger range of motion from prerecorded videos of a mannequin hand with articulating fingers, which was posed in extension and flexion that simulated a telehealth visit, using a </span>goniometer with results blinded to the clinician (blinded goniometry), visual estimation, and an electronic protractor, in random order. Total motion was calculated for each finger and for all four fingers in sum. The experience level, familiarity with measuring finger range of motion, and opinions of measurement difficulty were assessed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>Measurement with the electronic protractor was the only method equivalent to the reference standard within 20°. Remote goniometer and visual estimation did not fall within the acceptable error margin of equivalence, and both underestimated total motion. Electronic protractor also had the highest </span>interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [upper limit, lower limit], 0.95 [0.92, 0.95]); goniometry (intraclass correlation, 0.94 [0.91, 0.97]) was nearly identical, whereas visual estimation (intraclass correlation, 0.82 [0.74, 0.89]) was much lower. Clinicians’ experience and familiarity with range of motion measurements had no relationship with the findings. Clinicians reported visual estimation as the most difficult (80%) and electronic protractor as the easiest method (73%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study showed that traditional in-person forms of measurement underestimate finger range of motion via telehealth; a new computer-based method (ie, electronic protractor) was found to be more accurate.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>The use of an electronic protractor can be beneficial to clinicians measuring range of motion in patients virtually.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54815,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume","volume":"49 12","pages":"Pages 1265.e1-1265.e10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Different Methods of Measuring Finger Range of Motion via Telehealth\",\"authors\":\"Kory Bettencourt MS ,&nbsp;Ingrid Parry MS ,&nbsp;Miranda Yelvington MS ,&nbsp;Sandra Taylor PhD ,&nbsp;David Greenhalgh MD ,&nbsp;Michelle A. James MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study examined the accuracy and reliability of measuring total motion of the fingers via telehealth<span> using the following three different methods: (1) goniometry, (2) visual estimation, and (3) electronic protractor. Measurements were compared with in-person measurement, which was assumed to be the reference standard.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>Thirty clinicians measured finger range of motion from prerecorded videos of a mannequin hand with articulating fingers, which was posed in extension and flexion that simulated a telehealth visit, using a </span>goniometer with results blinded to the clinician (blinded goniometry), visual estimation, and an electronic protractor, in random order. Total motion was calculated for each finger and for all four fingers in sum. The experience level, familiarity with measuring finger range of motion, and opinions of measurement difficulty were assessed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>Measurement with the electronic protractor was the only method equivalent to the reference standard within 20°. Remote goniometer and visual estimation did not fall within the acceptable error margin of equivalence, and both underestimated total motion. Electronic protractor also had the highest </span>interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [upper limit, lower limit], 0.95 [0.92, 0.95]); goniometry (intraclass correlation, 0.94 [0.91, 0.97]) was nearly identical, whereas visual estimation (intraclass correlation, 0.82 [0.74, 0.89]) was much lower. Clinicians’ experience and familiarity with range of motion measurements had no relationship with the findings. Clinicians reported visual estimation as the most difficult (80%) and electronic protractor as the easiest method (73%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study showed that traditional in-person forms of measurement underestimate finger range of motion via telehealth; a new computer-based method (ie, electronic protractor) was found to be more accurate.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>The use of an electronic protractor can be beneficial to clinicians measuring range of motion in patients virtually.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume\",\"volume\":\"49 12\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1265.e1-1265.e10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363502323001697\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363502323001697","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨三种不同方法(1)测角法、(2)目测法和(3)电子量角器在远程医疗中测量手指总运动的准确性和可靠性。将测量值与现场测量值进行比较,并假设现场测量值为参考标准。方法:30名临床医生从预先录制的模拟远程医疗访问的具有关节手指的假人手的视频中测量手指的运动范围,该假人手摆出伸展和弯曲的姿势,使用对临床医生不知情的测角仪(盲测角仪),视觉估计和电子量角器,按随机顺序测量。计算每个手指和所有四个手指的总运动。评估经验水平、对测量手指活动度的熟悉程度和对测量难度的看法。结果:电子量角器是20°范围内唯一与参考标准相当的测量方法。遥测角仪和目视估计均未落在可接受的等效误差范围内,均低估了总运动。电子量角器的组间信度也最高(组内相关[上限,下限],0.95 [0.92,0.95]);角形测量(类内相关性,0.94[0.91,0.97])几乎相同,而视觉估计(类内相关性,0.82[0.74,0.89])要低得多。临床医生的经验和对运动范围测量的熟悉程度与结果无关。临床医生报告视觉估计是最困难的(80%),电子量角器是最简单的方法(73%)。结论:本研究表明,通过远程医疗,传统的面对面测量形式低估了手指的运动范围;人们发现以计算机为基础的新方法(即电子量角器)更为精确。临床相关性:使用电子量角器可以帮助临床医生测量患者的虚拟活动度。
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
Comparison of Different Methods of Measuring Finger Range of Motion via Telehealth

Purpose

This study examined the accuracy and reliability of measuring total motion of the fingers via telehealth using the following three different methods: (1) goniometry, (2) visual estimation, and (3) electronic protractor. Measurements were compared with in-person measurement, which was assumed to be the reference standard.

Methods

Thirty clinicians measured finger range of motion from prerecorded videos of a mannequin hand with articulating fingers, which was posed in extension and flexion that simulated a telehealth visit, using a goniometer with results blinded to the clinician (blinded goniometry), visual estimation, and an electronic protractor, in random order. Total motion was calculated for each finger and for all four fingers in sum. The experience level, familiarity with measuring finger range of motion, and opinions of measurement difficulty were assessed.

Results

Measurement with the electronic protractor was the only method equivalent to the reference standard within 20°. Remote goniometer and visual estimation did not fall within the acceptable error margin of equivalence, and both underestimated total motion. Electronic protractor also had the highest interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [upper limit, lower limit], 0.95 [0.92, 0.95]); goniometry (intraclass correlation, 0.94 [0.91, 0.97]) was nearly identical, whereas visual estimation (intraclass correlation, 0.82 [0.74, 0.89]) was much lower. Clinicians’ experience and familiarity with range of motion measurements had no relationship with the findings. Clinicians reported visual estimation as the most difficult (80%) and electronic protractor as the easiest method (73%).

Conclusions

This study showed that traditional in-person forms of measurement underestimate finger range of motion via telehealth; a new computer-based method (ie, electronic protractor) was found to be more accurate.

Clinical Relevance

The use of an electronic protractor can be beneficial to clinicians measuring range of motion in patients virtually.
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.50%
发文量
402
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hand Surgery publishes original, peer-reviewed articles related to the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and conditions of the upper extremity; these include both clinical and basic science studies, along with case reports. Special features include Review Articles (including Current Concepts and The Hand Surgery Landscape), Reviews of Books and Media, and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Development of International Quality Measures Targeting Low-Value Care in Hand Surgery. Replication of Coupled Movements of the Wrist: A Cadaveric Study of Total Wrist Arthroplasty. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Distal Radius Fractures Following Dorsal Bridge Fixation to the Second Versus Third Metacarpal. SARM1 Inhibition Maintains Axonal Integrity After Rat Sciatic Nerve Transection and Repair. Distal Radius Fracture in the Setting of Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Management and Adverse Events.
×
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