Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Mieritz, Rune Mygind; Brønfort, Gert; Kawchuk, Greg; Breen, Alan; Hartvigsen, Jan

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.09.011

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intra-session and inter-session trials showed CME to be very reliable for all movement directions. This is consistent with the study by Mieritz et al (2012) reporting a systematic review on the reliability of 3-D measures of the lumbar spine. Further, we have established a preliminary NRR for lumbar CME with which to contrast cases of specific lumbar dysfunction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing the clinical utility of combined movement examination in symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylosis

Monie

Price

Lind

et al. 2015

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing the clinical utility of combined movement examination in symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylosis

Monie

Price

Lind

et al. 2015

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…means, standard deviations). A quality assessment tool, using a similar approach to Mieritz [23], was constructed to determine how each study accounted for possible sources of bias, and if the study provided details on: (i) study population (age, sex, BMI, source), (ii) participant LBP (chronicity, +/- leg pain, specific versus non-specific, pain intensity and activity limitation scores), (iii) measurement procedures (i.e. detail that would enable accurate replication of the experiment, instrument description, standardised movement instructions, movement process description e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laird

Gilbert

Kent

et al. 2014

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

326

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared.ResultsThe search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls).ConclusionsOn average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.

show abstract

“…Despite their agreement with OMC systems in a laboratory setting, most studies examining the accuracy of IMU-based measurements have not sufficiently evaluated the repeatability of those measurements over a substantial time period, such as over the course of a full work shift (Mieritz et al 2012, Bergamini et al 2014. Some studies such as Plamondon et al (2007), Kim and Nussbaum (2013), and Wong and Wong (2008) have included dynamic, intermediate duration tasks (lasting 30, 20, and 120 min.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) system for directly measuring trunk angular displacement and upper arm elevation were evaluated over eight hours (i) in comparison to a gold standard, optical motion capture (OMC) system in a laboratory setting, and (ii) during a field-based assessment of dairy parlour work. Sample-to-sample root mean square differences between the IMU and OMC system ranged from 4.1° to 6.6° for the trunk and 7.2°-12.1° for the upper arm depending on the processing method. Estimates of mean angular displacement and angular displacement variation (difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles of angular displacement) were observed to change <4.5° on average in the laboratory and <1.5° on average in the field per eight hours of data collection. Results suggest the IMU system may serve as an acceptable instrument for directly measuring trunk and upper arm postures in field-based occupational exposure assessment studies with long sampling durations. Practitioner Summary: Few studies have evaluated inertial measurement unit (IMU) systems in the field or over long sampling durations. Results of this study indicate that the IMU system evaluated has reasonably good accuracy and repeatability for use in a field setting over a long sampling duration.

show abstract

Reliability and Measurement Error of 3-Dimensional Regional Lumbar Motion Measures: A Systematic Review

Cited by 22 publications

References 55 publications

Assessing the clinical utility of combined movement examination in symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylosis

Assessing the clinical utility of combined movement examination in symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylosis

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About