Baseline 12-1014 Plastic Finger Goniometer

Product Information

Maxwell SE, Delaney HD: Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. 2004, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd Smith et al specifically studied the use of photograph goniometry in the patient with Dupuytren disease and similarly found a high Pearson correlation coefficient (0.88) compared with manual goniometry and a high ICC (0.92) across different observers for the photograph measurements. 3 However, in that study the MP joints were excluded, all photographs were taken by physicians, and photographs were taken using a digital camera rather than a smartphone. Our study overcomes difficulty in visualizing the MP joint contractures by utilizing the straight edge of a pen in each image as a reference guide for angle measurement. In addition, this study compares photographs taken by professionals and those taken by untrained individuals such as patient family members and friends, allowing for a more realistic proxy for photographs obtained in a physically remote setting. Georgeu et al also tested photograph goniometry of the fingers and achieved a 1° difference between photograph goniometry and manual goniometry. 13 However, that study utilized a custom-made jig for uniform hand placement, a procedure too cumbersome and impractical for use in a busy clinic or telemedicine setting. Kato M, Echigo A, Ohta H, Ishiai S, Aoki M, Tsubota S, Uchiyama E: The accuracy of goniometric measurements of proximal interphalangeal joints in fresh cadavers: comparison between methods of measurement, types of goniometers, and fingers. J Hand Ther. 2007, 20: 12-18. 10.1197/j.jht.2006.11.015.

Jones A, Sealey R, Crowe M, Gordon S. Concurrent validity and reliability of the simple goniometer iPhone app compared with the universal goniometer. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2014; 30 (7): 512–516. Mourcou Q, Fleury A, Diot B, Franco C, Vuillerme N. Mobile Phone-Based Joint Angle Measurement for Functional Assessment and Rehabilitation of Proprioception.Biomed Res Int. 2015; doi: 10.1155/2015/328142 Exploratory data analysis included obtaining descriptive statistics, searching for outliers, and assessing the normality of distribution of the appropriate data sets by means of Shapiro-Wilk tests and the analysis of histograms and Q-Q plots. Analysis of the study parts A The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/14/17/prepub Glasgow C, Wilton J, Tooth L: Optimal daily total end range time for contracture: resolution in hand splinting. J Hand Ther. 2003, 16: 207-218. 10.1016/S0894-1130(03)00036-X.It is necessary that a single notation system is used in goniometry. The neutral zero method (0 to 180- degree system) is the most widely used method. The same goniometer should always be used to reduce the chances of instrumental error. Hopkins WG: Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000, 30: 1-15. 10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001. Burr N, Pratt AL, Stott D: Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability when measuring interphalangeal joints: comparison between three hand-held goniometers. Physiotherapy. 2003, 89: 641-652. 10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60097-1. Wireless Twin-Axis Electronic Goniometers provide the freedom of unrestricted movement, a key feature when studying natural, dynamic joint movements in real-world environments. Our wireless DataLITE technology eliminates the need for cumbersome cables, providing a hassle-free, unobtrusive experience for the user. The wireless transmission is robust and can transmit data up to a range of 30 meters, ensuring you have the flexibility and freedom to move without the concern of data loss.

Reliability estimates were similar for both goniometers. Intra-rater and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 0.93. The corresponding standard errors of measurements ranged from 2.4 to 4.9 degrees. Repeated measurements of a considerable number of raters fell within clinically non-meaningful 5 degrees of each other in proportions comparable with a criterion value of 0.95. Data collected with both instruments could be similarly interpreted in a simulated situation of change of joint range of motion over time. Conclusions Williams NW, Penrose JM, Caddy CM, Barnes E, Hose DR, Harley P: A goniometric glove for clinical hand assessment. Construction, calibration and validation. J Hand Surg Br. 2000, 25: 200-207. Weir JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005, 19: 231-240. Ellis B, Bruton A, Goddard JR: Joint angle measurement: a comparative study of the reliability of goniometry and wire tracing for the hand. Clin Rehabil. 1997, 11: 314-320. 10.1177/026921559701100408.So overall greater reliability is obtained when measures are taken by the same therapist, using a standardised method with the same measurement tool assessed at the same time of day. [1] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Goniometry Technique [ edit | edit source ] In evaluating any new method of ROM measurement, accuracy is crucial, but the method must also remain easily accessible to patients and clinicians. Recent advances in smartphone photography have introduced a new ubiquitous platform for photo goniometry. With nearly two-thirds of Americans owning a smartphone, 6 the cameras on these devices would easily allow patients to remotely send images and videos to physicians for clinical evaluation. Smartphone photography has the potential to facilitate telemedicine, increasing patient access and simplifying long-term follow-up. However, smartphone goniometry has yet to be validated for ROM measurements in the digits. Macdermid JC, Fox E, Richards RS, Roth JH: Validity of pulp-to-palm distance as a measure of finger flexion. J Hand Surg Br. 2001, 26: 432-435. 10.1054/jhsb.2001.0612. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL: Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64: 96-106. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.