The between-day and inter-rater reliability of a novel wireless system to analyse lumbar spine posture

Abstract

Peter(2011) 'The between-day and inter-rater reliability of a novel wireless system to analyse lumbar spine posture ', Ergonomics, 54: 1,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2010.535020 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.535020Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.The between-day and inter-rater reliability of a novel wireless system to analyse lumbar spine posture Lumbar posture is commonly assessed in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP), although quantitative measures have mostly been limited to laboratory environments. The BodyGuard TM is a spinal position monitoring device that can monitor posture in real time, both inside and outside the laboratory. The reliability of this wireless device was examined in 18 healthy participants during usual sitting and forward bending, two tasks that are commonly provocative in NSCLBP. Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEM), the mean difference and the minimal detectable change (MDC90). Betweenday ICC values ranged from 0.84 to 0.87, with small SEM (5%), mean difference (59%) and MDC90 (514%) values. Inter-rater ICC values ranged from 0.91 to 0.94, with small SEM (4%), mean difference (6%) and MDC90 (9%) values. Between-day and inter-rater reliability are essential requirements for clinical utility and were excellent in this study. Further studies into the validity of this device and its application in clinical trials in occupational settings are required. Statement of Relevance:A novel device that can analyse spinal posture exposure in occupational settings in a minimally invasive manner has been developed. This study established that the device has excellent between-day and inter-rater reliability in healthy pain-free subjects. Further studies in people with low back pain are planned.

Validity and reliability of the Spineangel®lumbo-pelvic postural monitor

“…Sheeran et al (2010) assessed between-day measurement error for the spine wheel device and found errors ranging from 4.08to 7.48. O'Sullivan et al (2011) found the SEM for between-day reliability for the Body-Guard monitor device to be 4.08. Since that device monitored specific lumbar segment movements, it is expected such instrument will have a lower SEM than the Spineangel w , which monitors gross trunk movement.…”

“…Various methods for assessing posture have been reported in the literature (Allread, Marras, and Burr 2000;David 2005;Freitag et al 2007;Wong and Wong 2008;Teschke et al 2009;Sheeran et al 2010;O'Sullivan et al 2011;Xu et al 2011). Visual assessment is commonly used in clinical practice and for work-risk assessment, while more robust and complex methods such as the use of real-time motion capture systems are used for laboratory studies (Intolo et al 2010;Straker et al 2010).…”

“…While direct assessment of working posture can provide precise and accurate information about postural exposure (Teschke et al 2009;Ribeiro et al 2011a), it has been argued that postural exposure outcome measures need to be assessed in a more systematic and standardised way (Vieira and Kumar 2004;Ribeiro et al 2012). A number of portable devices that provide alternatives for monitoring posture during real-life activities have recently been reported and have the potential to improve postural exposure measurements (Donatell et al 2005;Dean and Dean 2006;Horton and Abbott 2008;Teschke et al 2009;O'Sullivan et al 2011). From a clinical perspective, the ideal instrument should be capable of monitoring posture while also providing postural feedback for the user (Ribeiro et al 2011c).…”

Influence of different stool types on muscle activity and lumbar posture among dentists during a simulated dental screening task

“…BodyGuard TM was validated against a traditional flexible electrogoniometer (O'Sullivan et al, 2011) and correlation was found to be high in both sitting (r=0.98) and standing (r=0.99). Excellent association for between-day (ICC≥0.84) and inter-rater reliability (ICC≥0.91) was found and reliability was evaluated as good as, or better than the other devices (O'Sullivan et al, 2011). Lumbo-pelvic posture during functional tasks and postures (sitting and standing) was measured using BodyGuard TM and a traditional laboratorybased motion analysis system and the results compared .…”

Motion Tracker: Camera-Based Monitoring of Bodily Movements Using Motion Silhouettes

“…These kinds of garments tend to be skin-tight because they rely on the body deforming or straining the sensors in the fabric during movements, which may affect social and physical comfort. One effort to increase physical comfort is via use of plastic optical fiber sensors (e.g., [21]; also see [22], for a review of further fiber optic sensors as well as many other devices for measuring spinal posture).…”