Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of the present study was to assess interobserver reproducibility (in terms of reliability and agreement) of active and passive measurements of knee RoM using a long arm goniometer, performed by trained physical therapists in a clinical setting in total knee arthroplasty patients, within the first four days after surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Test-retest analysis</p> <p>Setting: University hospital departments of orthopaedics and physical therapy</p> <p>Participants: Two experienced physical therapists assessed 30 patients, three days after total knee arthroplasty.</p> <p>Main outcome measure: RoM measurement using a long-arm (50 cm) goniometer</p> <p>Agreement was calculated as the mean difference between observers ± 95% CI of this mean difference. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability, based on two-way random effects analysis of variance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The lowest level of agreement was that for measurement of passive flexion with the patient in supine position (mean difference 1.4°; limits of agreement 16.2° to 19° for the difference between the two observers. The highest levels of agreement were found for measurement of passive flexion with the patient in sitting position and for measurement of passive extension (mean difference 2.7°; limits of agreement -6.7 to 12.1 and mean difference 2.2°; limits of agreement -6.2 to 10.6 degrees, respectively). The ability to differentiate between subjects ranged from 0.62 for measurement of passive extension to 0.89 for measurements of active flexion (ICC values).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Interobserver agreement for flexion as well as extension was only fair. When two different observers assess the same patients in the acute phase after total knee arthroplasty using a long arm goniometer, differences in RoM of less than eight degrees cannot be distinguished from measurement error. Reliability was found to be acceptable for comparison on group level, but poor for individual comparisons over time.</p

Inter-observer reproducibility of measurements of range of motion in patients with shoulder pain using a digital inclinometer

BACKGROUND: Reproducible measurements of the range of motion are an important prerequisite for the interpretation of study results. The digital inclinometer is considered to be a useful instrument because it is inexpensive and easy to use. No previous study assessed inter-observer reproducibility of range of motion measurements with a digital inclinometer by physical therapists in a large sample of patients. METHODS: Two physical therapists independently measured the passive range of motion of the glenohumeral abduction and the external rotation in 155 patients with shoulder pain. Agreement was quantified by calculation of the mean differences between the observers and the standard deviation (SD) of this difference and the limits of agreement, defined as the mean difference ± 1.96*SD of this difference. Reliability was quantified by means of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The limits of agreement were 0.8 ± 19.6 for glenohumeral abduction and -4.6 ± 18.8 for external rotation (affected side) and quite similar for the contralateral side and the differences between sides. The percentage agreement within 10° for these measurements were 72% and 70% respectively. The ICC ranged from 0.28 to 0.90 (0.83 and 0.90 for the affected side). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-observer agreement was found to be poor. If individual patients are assessed by two different observers, differences in range of motion of less than 20–25 degrees can not be distuinguished from measurement error. In contrast, acceptable reliability was found for the inclinometric measurements of the affected side and the differences between the sides, indicating that the inclimeter can be used in studies in which groups are compared

Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life

Background To assess the criterion and construct validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, a short version of the KIDSCREEN-52 and KIDSCREEN-27 instruments. Methods The child self-report and parent report versions of the KIDSCREEN-10 were tested in a sample of 22,830 European children and adolescents aged 8–18 and their parents (n = 16,237). Correlation with the KIDSCREEN-52 and associations with other generic HRQoL measures, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic status were examined. Score differences by age, gender, and country were investigated. Results Correlations between the 10-item KIDSCREEN score and KIDSCREEN-52 scales ranged from r = 0.24 to 0.72 (r = 0.27–0.72) for the self-report version (proxy-report version). Coefficients below r = 0.5 were observed for the KIDSCREEN-52 dimensions Financial Resources and Being Bullied only. Cronbach alpha was 0.82 (0.78), test–retest reliability was ICC = 0.70 (0.67) for the self- (proxy-)report version. Correlations between other children self-completed HRQoL questionnaires and KIDSCREEN-10 ranged from r = 0.43 to r = 0.63 for the KIDSCREEN children self-report and r = 0.22–0.40 for the KIDSCREEN parent proxy report. Known group differences in HRQoL between physically/mentally healthy and ill children were observed in the KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores. Associations with self-reported psychosomatic complaints were r = −0.52 (−0.36) for the KIDSCREEN-10 self-report (proxy-report). Statistically significant differences in KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores were found by socioeconomic status, age, and gender. Conclusions Our results indicate that the KIDSCREEN-10 provides a valid measure of a general HRQoL factor in children and adolescents, but the instrument does not represent well most of the single dimensions of the original KIDSCREEN-52. Test–retest reliability was slightly below a priori defined thresholds

The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (POS-Hand/Arm): a new patient-based outcome measure.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new patient-based outcome measure for hand/arm disorders for use in audit, clinical trials and effectiveness studies. There were three stages. First, we carried out interviews with 40 patients with hand/arm disorders to develop and pilot questionnaire content. Second, in a postal survey with 165 pre- and 181 post-surgery patients, we reduced the number of items and identified scales. Third, in a postal survey with 132 pre- and 204 post-surgery patients we evaluated the psychometric properties of the measure. Findings confirmed the acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness to clinical change of the questionnaire. The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (POS-Hand/Arm) is a new surgical outcome measure that can be used before and after surgery (29 and 33 items, respectively) to evaluate and compare new techniques, surgical teams and units

Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility and validity of an indirect volume measurement in transtibial amputees.

Item does not contain fulltextThe objective of the study was to assess the measurement properties of an indirect volumetric measurement using segmental circumferential measurements fitted into a formula of a truncated cone (Sitzia's method) in long-term transtibial amputees. Twenty-eight participants with a transtibial amputation >1 year participated in the study. Two observers measured stump volume twice, two weeks apart, using both Sitzia's method and the water displacement volumetric method (criterion standard test). The mean differences and upper and lower limits of agreement between the water displacement volumetric method and Sitzia's method, between the first and second assessment, and between both assessors were calculated. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were derived from random-effects two-way analysis of variance. Inter-observer agreements of both methods were high and ranged from 86-96%. Intra-observer agreement ranged between 57% and 71%. In both methods the inter- and intra-observer differences were not significant. ICCs ranged from 0.88-0.99 and were better for inter-observer compared to intra-observer reproducibility. Lower stump volumes were observed in Sitzia's method compared to water displacement volumetric method, with high ICC's (0.92-0.95) between both methods. Although Sitzia's method systematically underestimates stump volume, it is a reliable and feasible alternative to the criterion standard test. To determine its validity to detect (longitudinal) differences in stump volume, follow-up research is needed in participants with recent amputations.1 maart 201