Li Yi Tammy Chan, Chong Shan Chua, Siaw Meng Chou, Ren Yi Benjamin Seah, Yilun Huang, Yue Luo, Lincoln Dacy, Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak
{"title":"Assessment of shoulder range of motion using a commercially available wearable sensor-a validation study.","authors":"Li Yi Tammy Chan, Chong Shan Chua, Siaw Meng Chou, Ren Yi Benjamin Seah, Yilun Huang, Yue Luo, Lincoln Dacy, Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak","doi":"10.21037/mhealth-22-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our study aims to validate a commercially available inertial measurement unit (IMU) system against a standard laboratory-based optical motion capture (OMC) system for shoulder measurements in a clinical context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The validation analyses were conducted on 19 healthy male volunteers. Twelve reflective markers were placed on each participant's trunk, scapula and across the arm and one IMU was attached via a self-adhesive strap on the forearm. A single tester simultaneously collected shoulder kinematic data for four shoulder movements: flexion, extension, external rotation, and abduction. Agreement between OMC system and IMU measurements was assessed with Bland-Altman analyses. Secondary analysis included mean biases, root mean square error (RMSE) analysis and Welch's <i>t</i>-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) exceeded the acceptable range of mean difference for 95% of the population (-22.27°, 11.31°). The mean bias showed high levels of agreement within 8° for all four movements. More than 60% of participants demonstrated mean bias less than 10° between methods. Statistically significant differences were found between measurements for abduction (P<0.001) and flexion (P=0.027) but not for extension and external rotation (P≥0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study shows preliminary evidence for acceptable accuracy of a commercially available IMU against an OMC system for assessment of shoulder movements by a single tester. The IMU also exhibits similar whole degree of error compared to a standard goniometer with potential for application in remote rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74181,"journal":{"name":"mHealth","volume":" ","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/55/4f/mh-08-22-7.PMC9634209.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mHealth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-22-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Background: Our study aims to validate a commercially available inertial measurement unit (IMU) system against a standard laboratory-based optical motion capture (OMC) system for shoulder measurements in a clinical context.
Methods: The validation analyses were conducted on 19 healthy male volunteers. Twelve reflective markers were placed on each participant's trunk, scapula and across the arm and one IMU was attached via a self-adhesive strap on the forearm. A single tester simultaneously collected shoulder kinematic data for four shoulder movements: flexion, extension, external rotation, and abduction. Agreement between OMC system and IMU measurements was assessed with Bland-Altman analyses. Secondary analysis included mean biases, root mean square error (RMSE) analysis and Welch's t-test.
Results: Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) exceeded the acceptable range of mean difference for 95% of the population (-22.27°, 11.31°). The mean bias showed high levels of agreement within 8° for all four movements. More than 60% of participants demonstrated mean bias less than 10° between methods. Statistically significant differences were found between measurements for abduction (P<0.001) and flexion (P=0.027) but not for extension and external rotation (P≥0.05).
Conclusions: Our study shows preliminary evidence for acceptable accuracy of a commercially available IMU against an OMC system for assessment of shoulder movements by a single tester. The IMU also exhibits similar whole degree of error compared to a standard goniometer with potential for application in remote rehabilitation.