Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to compare intrarater and inter-rater reliability of active cervical range of motion (ACROM) measures obtained with technological devices to those assessed with low-cost devices in patients with nonspecific neck pain. As a secondary outcome, we investigated if ACROM reliability is influenced by the plane of the assessed movement. Methods Medline, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PEDro, and gray literature were searched until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were reliability design, population of adults with nonspecific neck pain, examiners of any level of experience, measures repeated at least twice, and statistical indexes on reliability. A device was considered inexpensive if it cost less than €500. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed by Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies. Results The search yielded 35 151 records. Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. Their Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies mean score was 3.7 of 11. No significant effect of the type of device (inexpensive vs expensive) on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was identified for intrarater (ICC = 0.93 vs 0.91; P >.99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.80 vs 0.87; P >.99). The plane of movement did not affect inter-rater reliability (P =.11). Significant influences were identified with intrarater reliability (P =.0001) of inexpensive devices, where intrarater reliability decreased (P =.01) in side bending, compared with flexion-extension. Conclusions The use of expensive devices to measure ACROM in adults with nonspecific neck pain does not seem to improve the reliability of the assessment. Side bending had a lower level of intrarater reliability.

Intrarater and Inter-rater Reliability of Active Cervical Range of Motion in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain Measured With Technological and Common Use Devices: A Systematic Review With Meta-regression

Rondoni, Angie;Rossettini, Giacomo;Ristori, Diego;Gallo, Fabio;Strobe, Marco;Testa, Marco
2017-01-01

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to compare intrarater and inter-rater reliability of active cervical range of motion (ACROM) measures obtained with technological devices to those assessed with low-cost devices in patients with nonspecific neck pain. As a secondary outcome, we investigated if ACROM reliability is influenced by the plane of the assessed movement. Methods Medline, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PEDro, and gray literature were searched until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were reliability design, population of adults with nonspecific neck pain, examiners of any level of experience, measures repeated at least twice, and statistical indexes on reliability. A device was considered inexpensive if it cost less than €500. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed by Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies. Results The search yielded 35 151 records. Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. Their Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies mean score was 3.7 of 11. No significant effect of the type of device (inexpensive vs expensive) on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was identified for intrarater (ICC = 0.93 vs 0.91; P >.99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.80 vs 0.87; P >.99). The plane of movement did not affect inter-rater reliability (P =.11). Significant influences were identified with intrarater reliability (P =.0001) of inexpensive devices, where intrarater reliability decreased (P =.01) in side bending, compared with flexion-extension. Conclusions The use of expensive devices to measure ACROM in adults with nonspecific neck pain does not seem to improve the reliability of the assessment. Side bending had a lower level of intrarater reliability.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
YMMT_1577_corrected_proof.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Dimensione 670.35 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
670.35 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/891258
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 12
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact