Advanced

Zebris versus myrin: A comparative study between a three-dimensional ultrasound movement analysis and an inclinometer/compass method - Intradevice reliability, concurrent validity, intertester comparison, intratester reliability, and intraindividual variability

Malmström, Eva-Maj LU ; Karlberg, Mikael LU ; Melander, A and Magnusson, Måns LU (2003) In Spine 28(21). p.433-440
Abstract
Study Design. Experimental study. Objectives. To compare two devices for measuring cervical range of motion, a three-dimensional ultrasound motion device (Zebris) and a gravity-reference goniometer (Myrin). Summary of Background Data. Assessment of cervical range of motion is used to evaluate the effect of different treatments, determine impairment, and ascertain the relationship between neck disorders and cervical spine mobility. Methods. Sixty "neck-healthy" volunteers (25 men, 35 women; mean age 38 years, range 22-58 years) performed active maximal movements in flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral flexion. Maximal cervical range of: motion was recorded simultaneously with the Zebris and Myrin devices. Intradevice reliability,... (More)
Study Design. Experimental study. Objectives. To compare two devices for measuring cervical range of motion, a three-dimensional ultrasound motion device (Zebris) and a gravity-reference goniometer (Myrin). Summary of Background Data. Assessment of cervical range of motion is used to evaluate the effect of different treatments, determine impairment, and ascertain the relationship between neck disorders and cervical spine mobility. Methods. Sixty "neck-healthy" volunteers (25 men, 35 women; mean age 38 years, range 22-58 years) performed active maximal movements in flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral flexion. Maximal cervical range of: motion was recorded simultaneously with the Zebris and Myrin devices. Intradevice reliability, concurrent validity; intertester comparison, intratester reliability, and intraindividual variability were computed. Results. Our study showed good agreement of full-cycle cervical range of motion measurement between devices, testers, and the test and retest (intraclass correlation [ICC] was >0.90 for intradevice reliability, >0.93 for concurrent validity, and >0.92 for intratester reliability). Method error, assessed with the within-subject coefficient of variation for 95% of the measurements, was 5.4% to 11.1% for intradevice reliability, 4.4% to 7.6% for concurrent validity, 3.6% to 7.6% for intratester reliability, and 5.3% to 9.9% for individual variability. Individual variability did not increase with an increased cervical range of motion. Conclusion. Both devices are reliable and showed good agreement. We conclude that the two techniques can be used interchangeably. Our study supports the continued use of the Myrin - a gravity-reference goniometer in routine clinical orthopedic work. The more sophisticated three-dimensional method adds information and allows evaluation of combined motion in two and three dimensions and is suitable for research. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
cervical spine, normal subjects, cervical range of motion
in
Spine
volume
28
issue
21
pages
433 - 440
publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
external identifiers
  • pmid:14595170
  • wos:000186461400001
  • scopus:4944264738
ISSN
0362-2436
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
7235dd9d-a87c-43cc-97c1-99dbdce0f6c1 (old id 295840)
date added to LUP
2007-09-18 07:07:48
date last changed
2018-01-07 09:29:07
@article{7235dd9d-a87c-43cc-97c1-99dbdce0f6c1,
  abstract     = {Study Design. Experimental study. Objectives. To compare two devices for measuring cervical range of motion, a three-dimensional ultrasound motion device (Zebris) and a gravity-reference goniometer (Myrin). Summary of Background Data. Assessment of cervical range of motion is used to evaluate the effect of different treatments, determine impairment, and ascertain the relationship between neck disorders and cervical spine mobility. Methods. Sixty "neck-healthy" volunteers (25 men, 35 women; mean age 38 years, range 22-58 years) performed active maximal movements in flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral flexion. Maximal cervical range of: motion was recorded simultaneously with the Zebris and Myrin devices. Intradevice reliability, concurrent validity; intertester comparison, intratester reliability, and intraindividual variability were computed. Results. Our study showed good agreement of full-cycle cervical range of motion measurement between devices, testers, and the test and retest (intraclass correlation [ICC] was >0.90 for intradevice reliability, >0.93 for concurrent validity, and >0.92 for intratester reliability). Method error, assessed with the within-subject coefficient of variation for 95% of the measurements, was 5.4% to 11.1% for intradevice reliability, 4.4% to 7.6% for concurrent validity, 3.6% to 7.6% for intratester reliability, and 5.3% to 9.9% for individual variability. Individual variability did not increase with an increased cervical range of motion. Conclusion. Both devices are reliable and showed good agreement. We conclude that the two techniques can be used interchangeably. Our study supports the continued use of the Myrin - a gravity-reference goniometer in routine clinical orthopedic work. The more sophisticated three-dimensional method adds information and allows evaluation of combined motion in two and three dimensions and is suitable for research.},
  author       = {Malmström, Eva-Maj and Karlberg, Mikael and Melander, A and Magnusson, Måns},
  issn         = {0362-2436},
  keyword      = {cervical spine,normal subjects,cervical range of motion},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {21},
  pages        = {433--440},
  publisher    = {Lippincott Williams & Wilkins},
  series       = {Spine},
  title        = {Zebris versus myrin: A comparative study between a three-dimensional ultrasound movement analysis and an inclinometer/compass method - Intradevice reliability, concurrent validity, intertester comparison, intratester reliability, and intraindividual variability},
  volume       = {28},
  year         = {2003},
}