Abstract

We developed a smartphone application to measure wrist motion using the mobile device’s built-in motion sensors or connecting it via Bluetooth to a wearable sensor. Measurement of wrist motion with this method was assessed in 33 participants on two occasions and compared with those obtained with a standard goniometer. The test–retest reproducibility in healthy individuals ranged from good to excellent (intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.76–0.95) for all motions, both with and without the wearable sensor. These results improved to excellent (ICC 0.90–0.96) on the second test day, suggesting a learning effect. The day-to-day reproducibility was overall better with the wearable sensor (mean ICC 0.87) compared with the application without using sensor or goniometer (mean ICC 0.82 and 0.60, respectively). This study suggests that smartphone-based measurements of wrist range of motion are feasible and highly accurate, making it a powerful tool for outcome studies after wrist surgery.

Highlights

  • Using a goniometer to directly measure joint angulation is a common and standard tool for recording joint range of motion (ROM) (Ellis et al, 1997; Norkin and White, 2016; Pourahmadi et al, 2017)

  • The goniometer has a margin of error of 5, which is considered acceptable (HAKIR – Handkirugiskt kvalitetsregister (Swedish hand surgery quality register, 2016)

  • There was excellent agreement between angles measured with the mobile device and the external sensor, and the set angles (30, 60 and 90) of the goniometer in the three different planes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Using a goniometer to directly measure joint angulation is a common and standard tool for recording joint range of motion (ROM) (Ellis et al, 1997; Norkin and White, 2016; Pourahmadi et al, 2017). The method requires the patient to come to the clinic for a therapist or physician to take the measurements. The measurement by busy surgeons or therapists may be inaccurately obtained. A smartphone-based goniometric measurement may serve as an additional method (Hales et al, 2015; Jones et al, 2014; Kim et al, 2014; Pourahmadi et al, 2017; Shin et al, 2012; Wellmon et al, 2016)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call