Validity of flexicurve for the assessment of spinal flexibility in asymptomatic individuals
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |