The Spineangel®: Examining the validity and reliability of a novel clinical device for monitoring trunk motion

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

“…It is considerably smaller than some alternative devices (Donatell et al 2005), so that it should not interfere with normal movements and function. Many other similar-sized devices are based on overall trunk flexion rather than local spinal flexion (Intolo et al 2010), which is a considerable disadvantage when addressing subtle local changes in lumbar spine posture. It is difficult to compare the output regarding spinal posture with the results of other devices as the output of this device is not expressed in degrees and currently only measures sagittal plane motion.…”

“…This is the first in a series of studies planned to determine the clinical utility of the device for research in NSCLBP populations. While the device has been validated in simple sagittal plane postures and movements against an electrogoniometer, future studies will be performed to compare this device to a standard laboratory-based motion system, as well as digital video fluoroscopy, similar to the approach used with the validation of other motion analysis systems (Schuit et al 1997, Mannion and Troke 1999, Bull and McGregor 2000, Ripani et al 2008, Intolo et al 2010.…”

“…Unfortunately, some of the devices are relatively large and invasive, such that they cannot be concealed easily (Donatell et al 2005, Magnusson et al 2008 or only used under supervision (Magnusson et al 2008). While some of these devices have at least some evidence of initial reliability and/or validity studies being completed (Donatell et al 2005, Intolo et al 2010, this is not the case with all devices (Dean and Dean 2006, Magnusson et al 2008, Mork and Westgaard 2009. It is critical that the desire to promptly use these devices in clinical trials is balanced against the requirement to initially establish the scientific robustness of the device itself.…”

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

“…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). The disadvantage of laboratory-based systems is technical complexity requiring time-consuming methods for assessing posture (Straker et al 2010).…”

“…The device has been shown to be a valid instrument for monitoring pelvic movements during forward bending, with hands reaching the knees, in a controlled laboratory setting and while adhered directly to the skin (Intolo et al 2010). However, the Spineangel w was designed to be clipped on a belt or waistband of workplace or normal clothing, and its validity as a monitor of lumbo-pelvic posture under these conditions and during different tasks is unknown.…”