Validity and reliability of trunk mobility assessment in the sagittal plane by ultrasonic movement analysis;Validite et reproductibilite de la mesure de la mobilite spino-pelvi- femorale dans le plan sagittal par un systeme a ultrasons d'analyse du mouvement

Annales de Readaptation et de Medecine Physique

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 166-174

  Perret, C ^a   Poiraudeau, S ^a   Fermanian, J ^b   Revel, M ^a  

^a Universite René Descartes ^*  (France)

^b HÔPITAL NECKER ENFANTS MALADES   (France)

Author keywords

Motion analysis; Pelvic mobility; Spine; Ultrasounds

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MOVEMENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBOSACRAL SPINE; MALE; MOTION; PELVIS; RADIOGRAPHY; RELIABILITY; SPINE; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TRUNK;

EID: 0034192853     PISSN: 01686054     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-6054(00)88986-2     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. American Psychological Association. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington: American Psychological Association; 1995.
2. Atkinson G, Nevill A. Comment on the use of concordance correlation to assess the agreement between two variables. Biometrics 1997 ; 52 : 775-7.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986 ; 1 : 307-10.
4. Gill K, Krag MH, Johnson GB, Haugh LD, Pope MH. Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion. Spine 1988 ; 13 : 50-3.
5. Hyytiainen K, Salminen JJ, Suvitie T, Wickstrom G, Pentti J. Reproducibility of nine tests to measure spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991 ; 23 : 3-10.
6. I-Kuei Lin L, Chinchilli V. Rejoinder to the letter to the editor from Atkinson and Nevill. Biometrics 1997 ; 52 : 777-8.
7. McCombe PF, Fairbank JCT, Cockersole BC, Pynsent PB. 1989 Volvo award in clinical sciences: Reproducibility of physical signs in low back pain. Spine 1989 ; 14 : 908-18.
8. Macrae IF, Wright V. Measurement of back movement. Ann Rheum Dis 1969 ; 28 : 584-9.
9. Mayer TG, Kondraske G, Beals SB, Gatchel RJ. Spinal range of motion. Accuracy and sources of error with inclinometric measurement. Spine 1997 ; 22 : 1976-84.
10. Merritt JL, McLean TJ, Erickson RP, Offord KP. Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: Reproducibility of three clinical methods. Mayo Clin Proc 1986 ; 61 : 192-7.
11. Miller MH, Lee P, Smythe HA, Goldsmith CH. Measurements of spinal mobility in the sagittal plane: New skin contraction technique compared with established methods. J Rheumatol 1984 ; 11 : 507-11.
12. Moll JM, Wright V. Normal range of spinal mobility. An objective clinical study. Ann Rheum Dis 1971 ; 30 : 381-6.
13. Schreiber U. Computerisiertes McBsystem (Zebris CMS 50) zur Bewegungsanalyse bei Patienten mit low back pain. Jena 1994 ; 2: 209-17.
14. th European Congress of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Rome; 1997.
15. Vogt L, Banzer W. Reproduzierbarkeit thorakaler und lumbaler wirbelsäulenbewegungen mit der 3D-Ultraschalltopometrie. Phys Rehabil Kur Med 1997 ; 7 : 21-5.
16. Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, Venner RM, Rae PS, Sharmy SH, et al. Normality and reliability in the clinical assessment of backache. Br Med J 1982 ; 284 : 1519-23.
17. Williams R, Binkley J, Bloch R, Goldsmith CH, Minuk T. Reliability of the modified-Schöber and double inclinometer methods of measuring lumbar flexion and extension. Phys Ther 1993 ; 73 : 33-44.