Can a physical activity monitor provide a valid measure of arm elevation angle? A study to assess agreement between the SenseWear Mini Armband and the universal goniometer

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

John D Breckenridge³  John W Lockhart¹  Andrew D Hirschhorn² 

[1] Physical Therapy Division, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA;Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;Mungovan Breckenridge Physiotherapy and Associates, Sydney, Australia

关键词: Goniometry;    Shoulder;    Upper extremity;    Accelerometer;    Physical activity monitor;    Range of motion;   

Others  :  1135677
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0507-4

 received in 2014-10-21, accepted in 2015-02-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

We undertook the current study to assess whether an accelerometer-based physical activity monitor, the SenseWear Mini Armband (SMA), could be used to provide data on static arm elevation, and to assess the agreement between static arm elevation measures obtained using SMA-derived data and those obtained with a universal goniometer.

Methods

Using a universal goniometer, healthy adult subjects (n = 25, age 30 ± 9 years) had each of right and left arms positioned in a series of set positions between arm-by-side and maximal active arm flexion (anteversion), and arm-by-side and maximal active arm abduction. Subjects wore the SMA throughout positioning, and SMA accelerometer data was used to retrospectively calculate/derive arm elevation angle using a manufacturer-provided algorithm. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement between goniometer-set and SMA-derived arm elevation angles.

Results

There were significant differences between goniometer-set and SMA-derived arm elevation angles for elevation angles ≤ 30 degrees and ≥ 90 degrees (p < 0.05). Bland-Altman plots showed that the greater the angle of elevation, the greater the mean difference between goniometer-set and SMA-derived elevation angles. Adjustment of the manufacturer-provided algorithm for deriving arm elevation angle corrected for this systematic difference, and resulted in 95% limits of agreement ± 12 degrees (flexion) and ± 13 degrees (abduction) across the full range of arm elevation.

Conclusions

The SMA can be used to record data allowing derivation of static arm elevation angle in the upright position, 95% limits of agreement with the universal goniometer being similar to those reported for digital inclinometers and gyroscopes. Physiotherapists looking for innovative methods of recording upper limb range of motion should consider the potential of accelerometer-based physical activity monitors such as the SMA.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Hirschhorn et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Carey MA, Laird DE, Murray KA, Stevenson JR: Reliability, validity, and clinical usability of a digital goniometer. Work 2010, 36:55-66.
• [2]Reese NB, Bandy WD: Measurement of range of motion and muscle length: background, history, and basic principles. In Joint range of motion and muscle length testing. 2nd edition. Edited by Falk K. Saunders Elsevier, St Louis; 2010:3-30.
• [3]van de Pol RJ, van Trijfell E, Lucas C: Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological range of motion of upper extremity joints is better if instruments are used: a systematic review. J Physiother 2010, 56:7-17.
• [4]Reese NB, Bandy WD: Reliability and validity of measurements of range of motion and muscle length testing of the upper extremit. In Joint range of motion and muscle length testing. 2nd edition. Edited by Falk K. Saunders Elsevier, St Louis; 2010:165-82.
• [5]Kolber MJ, Hanney WJ: The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2012, 7:306-13.
• [6]El-Zayat BF, Efe T, Heidrich A, Anetsmann R, Timmesfeld N, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, et al.: Objective assessment, repeatability, and agreement of shoulder ROM with a 3D gyroscope. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013, 14:72. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Bernmark E, Wiktorin C: A triaxial accelerometer for measuring arm movements. Appl Ergon 2002, 33:541-7.
• [8]Luinge HJ, Veltink PH, Baten CTM: Ambulatory measurement of arm orientation. J Biomech 2007, 40:78-85.
• [9]Saber-Sheikh K, Bryant EC, Glazzard C, Hamel A, Lee RYW: Feasibility of using inertial sensors to assess human movement. Man Ther 2010, 15:122-5.
• [10]Van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, Raste Y, Burtin C, Louvaris Z, Gieno-Santos E, et al.: Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:84. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH outcome measure user’s manual. 3rd edition. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto; 2011.
• [12]Lugo K. Bodymedia Inc. 2014, Personal communication.
• [13]Bland JM, Altman DG: Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995, 346:1085-7.
• [14]Rettig O, Krautwurst B, Wolf SI. Ex-/internal rotation during bilateral shoulder ab-/adduction and ante-/retroversion movements described as conjunct and adjunct rotation. Rettig O, UniversitatsKlinikum Heidelberg.2014, personal communication.
• [15]Amasay T, Zodrow K, Kincl L, Hess J, Karduna A: Validation of tri-axial accelerometer for the calculation of elevation angles. Int J Ind Ergon 2009, 39:783-9.