Advertisement

Intrarater Agreement of Elbow Extension Range of Motion in the Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1 Using a Smartphone Application

  • Joana Cruz
    Affiliations
    Lab 3R – Respiratory Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory, School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Department of Health Technologies, School of Health Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • Nuno Morais
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Nuno Morais, MSc, Rua Engenheiro Duarte Pacheco, 19C, Fração AC, 3850-040 Albergaria-a-Velha, Portugal.
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Technologies, School of Health Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author

      Highlights

      • The smartphone application showed a relatively wide agreement of elbow extension range of motion during the Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1.
      • A better agreement was found at maximal pain tolerance than at the onset of pain.
      • Results regarding maximal pain tolerance are comparable with those using goniometers.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To estimate the intrarater agreement of the Compass application of a smartphone in the assessment of elbow extension range of motion (EE-ROM) at pain onset and maximum tolerable point during the Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1 (ULNT1).

      Design

      Within-day intrarater agreement study.

      Setting

      Private and university clinical settings.

      Participants

      Volunteers (N=41; 21 men; age, 31.34±13.27y; height, 1.67±0.07m; body mass, 70.53±12.37kg) recruited from the community, with no symptoms or musculoskeletal abnormalities in their upper body quadrant and no regional or systemic nerve dysfunction.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Ninety-five percent limits of agreement (LOA), standard error of the measurement, and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) of EE-ROM at pain onset and maximum tolerable point during the ULNT1.

      Results

      Standard error of the measurement and MDC95 were relatively high on both sides when considering the onset of pain (standard error of the measurement, 6.6°–6.8°; MDC95, 18.4°–18.8°). Better results were found for the maximum tolerable point (standard error of the measurement, 4.2°–4.8°; MDC95, 11.7°–13.2°). The 95% LOA showed a similar trend.

      Conclusions

      Smartphone measurements showed relatively wide agreement parameters of elbow extension during the ULNT1. These results are, nevertheless, comparable with previous studies using goniometric assessment when considering maximal pain tolerance. Further research is needed before the possible widespread use of the smartphone in neurodynamic assessment.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      CI (confidence interval), EE-ROM (elbow extension range of motion), LOA (limits of agreement), MDC95 (minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level), ULNT1 (Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nee R.J.
        • Butler D.
        Management of peripheral neuropathic pain: Integrating neurobiology, neurodynamics, and clinical evidence.
        Phys Ther Sport. 2006; 7: 36-49
        • Coppieters M.W.
        • Alshami A.M.
        • Hodges P.W.
        An experimental pain model to investigate the specificity of the neurodynamic test for the median nerve in the differential diagnosis of hand symptoms.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87: 1412-1417
        • Butler D.S.
        The sensitive nervous system.
        NoiGroup Publications, Unley2000
        • Shacklock M.O.
        Clinical neurodynamics: a new system of musculoskeletal treatment.
        Elsevier Health Sciences, Edinburgh2005
        • Apelby-Albrecht M.
        • Andersson L.
        • Kleiva I.W.
        • Kvåle K.
        • Skillgate E.
        • Josephson A.
        Concordance of upper limb neurodynamic tests with medical examination and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cervical radiculopathy: a diagnostic cohort study.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013; 36: 626-632
        • Nee R.J.
        • Jull G.A.
        • Vicenzino B.
        • Coppieters M.W.
        The validity of upper-limb neurodynamic tests for detecting peripheral neuropathic pain.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42: 413-424
        • Coppieters M.W.
        • Stappaerts K.H.
        • Wouters L.L.
        • Janssens K.
        Aberrant protective force generation during neural provocation testing and the effect of treatment in patients with neurogenic cervicobrachial pain.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003; 26: 99-106
        • Jaberzadeh S.
        • Scutter S.
        • Nazeran H.
        Mechanosensitivity of the median nerve and mechanically produced motor responses during Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1.
        Physiotherapy. 2005; 91: 94-100
        • Coppieters M.W.
        • Butler D.S.
        Do 'sliders' slide and 'tensioners' tension? An analysis of neurodynamic techniques and considerations regarding their application.
        Man Ther. 2008; 13: 213-221
        • Shin S.H.
        • Ro D.H.
        • Lee O.S.
        • Oh J.H.
        • Kim S.H.
        Within-day reliability of shoulder range of motion measurement with a smartphone.
        Man Ther. 2012; 17: 298-304
        • Morais N.V.
        • Pascoal A.G.
        Scapular positioning assessment: is side-to-side comparison clinically acceptable?.
        Man Ther. 2013; 18: 46-53
        • Milani P.
        • Coccetta C.A.
        • Rabini A.
        • Sciarra T.
        • Massazza G.
        • Ferriero G.
        Mobile smartphone applications for body position measurement in rehabilitation: a review of goniometric tools.
        PM R. 2014; 6: 1038-1043
        • Charlton P.C.
        • Mentiplay B.F.
        • Pua Y.H.
        • Clark R.A.
        Reliability and concurrent validity of a Smartphone, bubble inclinometer and motion analysis system for measurement of hip joint range of motion.
        J Sci Med Sport. 2015; 18: 262-267
        • Milanese S.
        • Gordon S.
        • Buettner P.
        • et al.
        Reliability and concurrent validity of knee angle measurement: smart phone app versus universal goniometer used by experienced and novice clinicians.
        Man Ther. 2014; 19: 569-574
        • Werner B.C.
        • Holzgrefe R.E.
        • Griffin J.W.
        • et al.
        Validation of an innovative method of shoulder range-of-motion measurement using a smartphone clinometer application.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: e275-e282
        • Ferriero G.
        • Vercelli S.
        • Sartorio F.
        • et al.
        Reliability of a smartphone-based goniometer for knee joint goniometry.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 2013; 36: 146-151
        • Johnson L.B.
        • Sumner S.
        • Duong T.
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of smartphone magnetometer-based goniometer evaluation of shoulder abduction - a pilot study.
        Man Ther. 2015; 20: 777-782
        • Jones A.
        • Sealey R.
        • Crowe M.
        • Gordon S.
        Concurrent validity and reliability of the simple goniometer iPhone app compared with the universal goniometer.
        Physiother Theory Pract. 2014; 30: 512-516
        • Kottner J.
        • Audigé L.
        • Brorson S.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 96-106
        • Hanada E.
        • Kirby R.L.
        • Mitchell M.
        • Swuste J.M.
        Measuring leg-length discrepancy by the “iliac crest palpation and book correction” method: reliability and validity.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 938-942
        • Tousignant-Laflamme Y.
        • Boutin N.
        • Dion A.
        • Vallee C.A.
        Reliability and criterion validity of two applications of the iPhoneTM to measure cervical range of motion in healthy participants.
        J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013; 10: 69
        • Coppieters M.
        • Stappaerts K.
        • Janssens K.
        • Jull G.
        Reliability of detecting ‘onset of pain’ and ‘submaximal pain’ during neural provocation testing of the upper quadrant.
        Physiother Res Int. 2002; 7: 146-156
        • Bryce C.D.
        • Armstrong A.D.
        Anatomy and biomechanics of the elbow.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2008; 39: 141-154
        • Adikrishna A.
        • Kekatpure A.L.
        • Tan J.
        • Lee H.J.
        • Deslivia M.F.
        • Jeon I.H.
        Vortical flow in human elbow joints: a three-dimensional computed tomography modeling study.
        J Anat. 2014; 225: 390-394
        • de Vet H.C.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Knol D.L.
        • Bouter L.M.
        When to use agreement versus reliability measures.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 1033-1039
        • Bland J.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8: 135-160
        • Oliver G.S.
        • Rushton A.
        A study to explore the reliability and precision of intra and inter-rater measures of ULNT1 on an asymptomatic population.
        Man Ther. 2011; 16: 203-206
        • Van Hoof T.
        • Vangestel C.
        • Shacklock M.
        • Kerckaert I.
        • D'Herde K.
        Asymmetry of the ULNT1 elbow extension range-of-motion in a healthy population: consequences for clinical practice and research.
        Phys Ther Sport. 2012; 13: 141-149
        • Lohkamp M.
        • Small K.
        Normal response to Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1 and 2A.
        Man Ther. 2011; 16: 125-130
        • Stalioraitis V.
        • Robinson K.
        • Hall T.
        Side-to-side range of movement variability in variants of the median and radial neurodynamic test sequences in asymptomatic people.
        Man Ther. 2014; 19: 338-342
        • Talebi G.A.
        • Oskouei A.E.
        • Shakori S.K.
        Reliability of upper limb tension test 1 in normal subjects and patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.
        J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil. 2012; 25: 209-214
        • Mitchell K.
        • Gutierrez S.B.
        • Sutton S.
        • Morton S.
        • Morgenthaler A.
        Reliability and validity of goniometric iPhone applications for the assessment of active shoulder external rotation.
        Physiother Theory Pract. 2014; 30: 521-525