↓ Skip to main content

Validity and reliability of arm abduction angle measured on smartphone: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Validity and reliability of arm abduction angle measured on smartphone: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0957-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas, Cristina Roldán-Jiménez

Abstract

Measuring range of movement is important in clinical shoulder assessment. Over the years, different techniques have been used to analyze upper limbs mobility. Smartphone image-based goniometer offers a noninvasive easy-to-use method of measuring arm abduction angle. However, the validity of this method has not been previously established. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of an Internet and image-based app (mROM) regarding arm abduction angle in both healthy subjects and patients suffering from shoulder damage. Twenty three subjects with shoulder pathology (14 female, 9 male) and 14 healthy subjects (8 female, 6 male) were examined (37 shoulders). mROM app was used to measure arm abduction angle. Two examiners measured 37 shoulders on 3 separate occasions over 2 days: 2 measurements on the first day and a third one the following day. Descriptive statistics were calculated for descriptive and anthropometric variables, as well as for the first measure of arm abduction angle by photographs and inertial sensors. Reliability was investigated by intraclass correlation coefficients and p values, and validity by Pearson correlation and P. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were high (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.998 and 0.984 respectively) for the total sample, although, for the healthy group, intrareliability was lower and interreliability was no reliable. Measurements from photographs and intertial sensors were highly correlated (Pearson r = 0.964) for the total sample. However, it was no significant for the healthy group. Smartphone photographs are a reliable and valid method to measure arm abduction angle, supporting the use of photography obtained through app for measuring joint ROM. This method provides a convenient and precise tool in assessment of arm motion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 38 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 38 59%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,847,459
of 13,323,590 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#414
of 2,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,718
of 267,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,323,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them