Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bochehin do Valle, Marja
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Hoffmann Dutra, Vinícius, Tarragô Candott, Cláudia, Adami Sedrez, Juliana, Wagner Neto, Edgar Santiago, Fagundes Loss, Jefferson
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Fisioterapia em Movimento
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/26303
Resumo: Introduction: Spine problems are common, and assessment of spine flexibility provides relevant information; however, alternative evaluation methods need to be validated. Objective: To evaluate the concurrent validity of the Flexicurve using 3D videogrammetry as a reference value to assess spinal flexion and extension in the lumbar and thoracic regions. Method: The consecutive sample consisted of 39 individuals aged between 18 and 50 years. Two consecutive evaluations were performed by the same rater on the same day and at the same location: (1) Flexicurve and (2) 3D videogrammetry. The assessments were performed with the spine in the neutral position, followed by maximum flexion and extension. The range of motion (ROM) in the maximum flexion and extension positions was calculated in MATLAB® and defined as the difference between the maximum flexion or extension angle and that of the neutral position. Statistical analyses used were the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient, RMS error and Bland-Altman plot (α < 0.05). Results: The ROM between instruments was similar, with high correlations for thoracic flexion (r = 0.751), extension (r = 0.814) and lumbar flexion (r = 0.853), and RMS errors under 8°. The correlation for lumbar extension was moderate (r = 0.613) and the RMS error was more than 10°. The limits of agreement varied between ± 10º and ± 21º. Conclusion: The Flexicurve is valid for assessing maximum flexion and extension of the thoracic spine, and maximum flexion of the lumbar spine. We suggest caution in evaluating the maximum extension of the lumbar spine.
id PUC_PR-26_3a9ab38a58ad2089c7abe1a3cefee23a
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/26303
network_acronym_str PUC_PR-26
network_name_str Fisioterapia em Movimento
repository_id_str
spelling Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individualsIntroduction: Spine problems are common, and assessment of spine flexibility provides relevant information; however, alternative evaluation methods need to be validated. Objective: To evaluate the concurrent validity of the Flexicurve using 3D videogrammetry as a reference value to assess spinal flexion and extension in the lumbar and thoracic regions. Method: The consecutive sample consisted of 39 individuals aged between 18 and 50 years. Two consecutive evaluations were performed by the same rater on the same day and at the same location: (1) Flexicurve and (2) 3D videogrammetry. The assessments were performed with the spine in the neutral position, followed by maximum flexion and extension. The range of motion (ROM) in the maximum flexion and extension positions was calculated in MATLAB® and defined as the difference between the maximum flexion or extension angle and that of the neutral position. Statistical analyses used were the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient, RMS error and Bland-Altman plot (α < 0.05). Results: The ROM between instruments was similar, with high correlations for thoracic flexion (r = 0.751), extension (r = 0.814) and lumbar flexion (r = 0.853), and RMS errors under 8°. The correlation for lumbar extension was moderate (r = 0.613) and the RMS error was more than 10°. The limits of agreement varied between ± 10º and ± 21º. Conclusion: The Flexicurve is valid for assessing maximum flexion and extension of the thoracic spine, and maximum flexion of the lumbar spine. We suggest caution in evaluating the maximum extension of the lumbar spine.Editora PUCPRESS2020-01-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/2630310.1590/1980-5918.033.ao14Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 33 (2020): n. cont.; 1 - 9Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 33 (2020): n. cont.; 1 - 91980-5918reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimentoinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)instacron:PUC_PRenghttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/26303/24052Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESSinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBochehin do Valle, MarjaHoffmann Dutra, ViníciusTarragô Candott, CláudiaAdami Sedrez, JulianaWagner Neto, Edgar SantiagoFagundes Loss, Jefferson2022-03-07T19:02:37Zoai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/26303Revistahttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisioPRIhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/oairubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br1980-59180103-5150opendoar:2022-03-07T19:02:37Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
title Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
spellingShingle Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
Bochehin do Valle, Marja
title_short Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
title_full Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
title_fullStr Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
title_full_unstemmed Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
title_sort Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
author Bochehin do Valle, Marja
author_facet Bochehin do Valle, Marja
Hoffmann Dutra, Vinícius
Tarragô Candott, Cláudia
Adami Sedrez, Juliana
Wagner Neto, Edgar Santiago
Fagundes Loss, Jefferson
author_role author
author2 Hoffmann Dutra, Vinícius
Tarragô Candott, Cláudia
Adami Sedrez, Juliana
Wagner Neto, Edgar Santiago
Fagundes Loss, Jefferson
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Bochehin do Valle, Marja
Hoffmann Dutra, Vinícius
Tarragô Candott, Cláudia
Adami Sedrez, Juliana
Wagner Neto, Edgar Santiago
Fagundes Loss, Jefferson
description Introduction: Spine problems are common, and assessment of spine flexibility provides relevant information; however, alternative evaluation methods need to be validated. Objective: To evaluate the concurrent validity of the Flexicurve using 3D videogrammetry as a reference value to assess spinal flexion and extension in the lumbar and thoracic regions. Method: The consecutive sample consisted of 39 individuals aged between 18 and 50 years. Two consecutive evaluations were performed by the same rater on the same day and at the same location: (1) Flexicurve and (2) 3D videogrammetry. The assessments were performed with the spine in the neutral position, followed by maximum flexion and extension. The range of motion (ROM) in the maximum flexion and extension positions was calculated in MATLAB® and defined as the difference between the maximum flexion or extension angle and that of the neutral position. Statistical analyses used were the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient, RMS error and Bland-Altman plot (α < 0.05). Results: The ROM between instruments was similar, with high correlations for thoracic flexion (r = 0.751), extension (r = 0.814) and lumbar flexion (r = 0.853), and RMS errors under 8°. The correlation for lumbar extension was moderate (r = 0.613) and the RMS error was more than 10°. The limits of agreement varied between ± 10º and ± 21º. Conclusion: The Flexicurve is valid for assessing maximum flexion and extension of the thoracic spine, and maximum flexion of the lumbar spine. We suggest caution in evaluating the maximum extension of the lumbar spine.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-01-15
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/26303
10.1590/1980-5918.033.ao14
url https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/26303
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/1980-5918.033.ao14
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/26303/24052
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora PUCPRESS
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora PUCPRESS
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 33 (2020): n. cont.; 1 - 9
Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 33 (2020): n. cont.; 1 - 9
1980-5918
reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimento
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
instacron:PUC_PR
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
instacron_str PUC_PR
institution PUC_PR
reponame_str Fisioterapia em Movimento
collection Fisioterapia em Movimento
repository.name.fl_str_mv Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv rubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br
_version_ 1799138749049733120