对单侧肩痛患者进行动态关节角度测量和视觉估算的可靠性和并发有效性

IF 1.2 Q3 REHABILITATION
Amy I. Bousquet , Leif E. Aronsen , Jenna M. Atlas , Brianna M. Corrado , Harrison Pijloo , Nicholas A. Queiroz , Matthew Austin , Sean P. Riley
{"title":"对单侧肩痛患者进行动态关节角度测量和视觉估算的可靠性和并发有效性","authors":"Amy I. Bousquet ,&nbsp;Leif E. Aronsen ,&nbsp;Jenna M. Atlas ,&nbsp;Brianna M. Corrado ,&nbsp;Harrison Pijloo ,&nbsp;Nicholas A. Queiroz ,&nbsp;Matthew Austin ,&nbsp;Sean P. Riley","doi":"10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.04.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The Constant-Murley Score (CMS) uses universal goniometry (UG), and the Shoulder Functional Reach Score (SFRS) uses visual estimation (VE). The CMS has validity challenges, and the SFRS has been critiqued for using VE. This study sought to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of VE when compared to the UG for shoulder flexion and abduction. Differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulder and expert and novice raters were also explored.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were included if they were at least 18 years old with unilateral, symptomatic shoulder pain, with no post-surgical contraindications. All conditions were randomized, and raters were blinded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The intertester reliability for UG had Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values of 0.76–0.91 at visit one. VE had ICC values that ranged from 0.87 to 0.92 at visit one. VE test-retest reliability had ICC values from 0.81 to 0.94. At visit one, concurrent validity was demonstrated by rho values from 0.84 to 0.89. There were statistically significant differences between the shoulders (P ≤ 0.0448), and there were no differences between the raters (P ≥ 0.0960).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>UG and VE of active shoulder flexion and abduction are reliable and concurrently valid. Additionally, there were differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders, and there were no differences between novice and expert raters.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The SFRS may be reliable and valid for measuring shoulder motion using VE within and between treatment sessions. Future research should examine this in larger, more diverse participant populations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51431,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability and concurrent validity of goniometric and visual estimation in participants with unilateral shoulder pain\",\"authors\":\"Amy I. Bousquet ,&nbsp;Leif E. Aronsen ,&nbsp;Jenna M. Atlas ,&nbsp;Brianna M. Corrado ,&nbsp;Harrison Pijloo ,&nbsp;Nicholas A. Queiroz ,&nbsp;Matthew Austin ,&nbsp;Sean P. Riley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.04.039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The Constant-Murley Score (CMS) uses universal goniometry (UG), and the Shoulder Functional Reach Score (SFRS) uses visual estimation (VE). The CMS has validity challenges, and the SFRS has been critiqued for using VE. This study sought to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of VE when compared to the UG for shoulder flexion and abduction. Differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulder and expert and novice raters were also explored.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were included if they were at least 18 years old with unilateral, symptomatic shoulder pain, with no post-surgical contraindications. All conditions were randomized, and raters were blinded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The intertester reliability for UG had Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values of 0.76–0.91 at visit one. VE had ICC values that ranged from 0.87 to 0.92 at visit one. VE test-retest reliability had ICC values from 0.81 to 0.94. At visit one, concurrent validity was demonstrated by rho values from 0.84 to 0.89. There were statistically significant differences between the shoulders (P ≤ 0.0448), and there were no differences between the raters (P ≥ 0.0960).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>UG and VE of active shoulder flexion and abduction are reliable and concurrently valid. Additionally, there were differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders, and there were no differences between novice and expert raters.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The SFRS may be reliable and valid for measuring shoulder motion using VE within and between treatment sessions. Future research should examine this in larger, more diverse participant populations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859224002274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859224002274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:康斯坦茨-莫利评分(CMS)采用通用动态关节角度测量法(UG),而肩关节功能伸展评分(SFRS)采用视觉估计法(VE)。CMS 在有效性方面存在挑战,而 SFRS 则因使用 VE 而受到批评。本研究旨在确定 VE 与 UG 相比在肩关节屈伸和外展方面的可靠性和并发有效性。研究还探讨了有症状和无症状肩部以及专家和新手评定者之间的差异。方法年满 18 周岁、患有单侧无症状肩部疼痛且无手术后禁忌症的参与者均被纳入研究范围。结果 UG 的测试者间可靠性在第一次访问时的类间相关系数 (ICC) 值为 0.76-0.91。VE 在第一次访问时的 ICC 值为 0.87 至 0.92。VE 测试再测可靠性的 ICC 值为 0.81 至 0.94。在第一次就诊时,并发效度的 rho 值为 0.84 至 0.89。肩部主动屈伸和外展的讨论UG和VE是可靠和同时有效的。此外,有症状和无症状肩部之间存在差异,新手和专家评分者之间也无差异。结论 SFRS 可用于在治疗疗程内和疗程间使用 VE 测量肩关节运动,具有可靠性和有效性。未来的研究应在更大规模、更多样化的参与人群中进行检验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The reliability and concurrent validity of goniometric and visual estimation in participants with unilateral shoulder pain

Introduction

The Constant-Murley Score (CMS) uses universal goniometry (UG), and the Shoulder Functional Reach Score (SFRS) uses visual estimation (VE). The CMS has validity challenges, and the SFRS has been critiqued for using VE. This study sought to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of VE when compared to the UG for shoulder flexion and abduction. Differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulder and expert and novice raters were also explored.

Methods

Participants were included if they were at least 18 years old with unilateral, symptomatic shoulder pain, with no post-surgical contraindications. All conditions were randomized, and raters were blinded.

Results

The intertester reliability for UG had Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values of 0.76–0.91 at visit one. VE had ICC values that ranged from 0.87 to 0.92 at visit one. VE test-retest reliability had ICC values from 0.81 to 0.94. At visit one, concurrent validity was demonstrated by rho values from 0.84 to 0.89. There were statistically significant differences between the shoulders (P ≤ 0.0448), and there were no differences between the raters (P ≥ 0.0960).

Discussion

UG and VE of active shoulder flexion and abduction are reliable and concurrently valid. Additionally, there were differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders, and there were no differences between novice and expert raters.

Conclusion

The SFRS may be reliable and valid for measuring shoulder motion using VE within and between treatment sessions. Future research should examine this in larger, more diverse participant populations.

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
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
133
审稿时长
321 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies brings you the latest therapeutic techniques and current professional debate. Publishing highly illustrated articles on a wide range of subjects this journal is immediately relevant to everyday clinical practice in private, community and primary health care settings. Techiques featured include: • Physical Therapy • Osteopathy • Chiropractic • Massage Therapy • Structural Integration • Feldenkrais • Yoga Therapy • Dance • Physiotherapy • Pilates • Alexander Technique • Shiatsu and Tuina
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信