Reproducibility of sagittal pelvic tilt measurements in normal subjects using digital inclinometry

Gait and Posture

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 513-516

  Prushansky, Tamara ^a   Ezra, Noa ^a   Kurse, Naama ^a   Man, Lotem ^a   Schneiderman, Yael ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Inclinometry; Pelvic tilt; Reproducibility; Sacrum

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY POSITION; CONTROL GROUP; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; NORMAL HUMAN; PELVIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDING; TILTING;

EID: 54049089237     PISSN: 09666362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.01.015     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Gajdosik R, Simpson R, Smith R, DonTigny RL. Pelvic tilt, intratester reliability of measuring the standing position and range of motion. Phys Ther 1985;65:169-74.
2. Alviso DJ, Dong GT, Lentell GL. Intertester reliability for measuring pelvic tilt in standing. Phys Ther 1988;68:1347-51.
3. Day JW, Smidt GL, Lehmann T. Effect of pelvic tilt on standing posture. Phys Ther 1984;64:511-6.
4. Levine D, Whittle MW. The effects of pelvic movement on lumbar lordosis in standing position. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1996;24:130-5.
5. Evcik D, Yucel A. Lumbar lordosis in acute and chronic low back pain patients. Rheumatol Int 2003;23:163-5.
6. Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, van Gool JJCM, Bernsen RMD, Njoo KH. Measuring the sacral inclination angle in clinical practice: is there an alternative to radiographs? J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:505-8.
7. Sandars G, Stavrakas P. A technique for measuring pelvic tilt. Phys Ther 1981;61:49-50.
8. Gilliam J, Brunt D, McMillan M, Kinard RE, Montgomery WJ. Relationship of pelvic angle to the sacral angle: measurement of clinical reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994;20:193-9.
9. Foley BS, Buschbacher RL. Sacroiliac joint pain: anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis and treatment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006;58:997-1006.
10. American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed., Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1993. p. 112-30.
11. Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becker JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek ALM. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001;10:571-8.
12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
13. Dvir Z, Prushansky T, Peretz C. Maximal versus feigned active cervical motion in healthy patients. The coefficient of variation as an indicator for sincerity of effort. Spine 2001;26:1680-8.
14. Atkinson G, Neville AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998;26:217-38.
15. Prushansky T, Handelzalts S, Pevzner E. Reproducibility of pain pressure threshold and visual analogue scale findings in chronic whiplash patients: a study of clinically meaningful changes. Clin J Pain 2007;23:339-45.