File
J. Dave1, M. Akre2, N. Sawant3
1Terna Physiotherapy College, Navi Mumbai, India, 2Self Employed, Mumbai, India, 3SICOP, Thane, India
Background: Advent of newer technologies have made it imperative for therapists to review their existing clinical assessment techniques to keep up with the changing times. Clinical assessment of Joint Range of Motion has been a cornerstone for physiotherapy assessment as well as treatment. Traditional method of Range of Motion assessment include the goniometric assessment of joint mobility using the universal goniometer. However, the usage of goniometer can be difficult due to incorrect and faulty handling of the instrument itself. Smartphone usage has exponentially increased in the recent times with various Apps helping the therapists making a diagnosis as well as plan a treatment. There have been numerous apps launched that help measuring the joint ROM. Their utility value needs to be studied.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare 2 methods of measuring joint ROM for the ankle joint and deciding if anyone is superior to the other in measuring the joint ROM. The purpose of the study was also to measure the minimal detectable change and the standard error of measurement for both the methods of assessment.
Methods: Passive range of motion for the ankle joint movements of dorsiflexion and plantarflexion were recorded on 30 healthy volunteers using manual universal goniometer and smartphone app called Goniometro which is an android app. Minimal detectable difference (MDD) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated for both measurement systems and compared. Maximal ROM of all joints was recorded thrice to evaluate the test-retest repeatability. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was calculated and examined to determine reliability.
Results: The MDD using goniometer was from 1.04 degrees to 4.68 degrees and using mobile app was 1.22 degrees to 1.48 degrees and the standard error (SEM) using mobile app was from 0.442 to 0.535 and using goniometer was 0.377 to 1.69. The reliability for the assessment using mobile app was 0.75 percent but for the goniometer was moderate of 0.6 percent.
Conclusion(s): MDD for the goniometer was statistically lower than the mobile app but the variance was higher for goniometer. SEM for the goniometer was statistically lower than the mobile app but the variance was again higher. The reliability of measurements using a mobile app was marginally better than using the goniometer. The minimal detectable difference is slightly better with the mobile phone application than goniometer and the SEM is less in mobile phone assessment than Goniometer.
Implications: The results show that the use of smart phone can be equal or marginally better than goniometric measurements and the use of smartphone can be extended to clinical assessment of joint ROM for the Ankle joint. This can be done using an app that evaluates as well as stores the data for future reference.
Funding, acknowledgements: This study was self funded. Dr. Medha Deo and Mr. Susmit Gawde are acknowledged for their support
Keywords: Joint ROM Ankle, Goniometer, Goniometro Smartphone application
Topic: Education: continuing professional development
Did this work require ethics approval? No
Institution: Terna Physiotherapy College
Committee: Terna Physiotherapy Research commitee
Reason: healthy volunteers recruited for Joint ROM Assessment
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
