Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11228

Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DCValorLengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorCánovas Ambit, Germán-
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Vidal, José A.-
dc.contributor.authorMartín San Agustín, Rodrigo-
dc.contributor.authorArenas Dalla Vecchia, Aurelio-
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Barbadora, Mariana-
dc.contributor.authorMedina Mirapeix, Francesc-
dc.contributor.otherFacultad de Química, Departamento de Electromagnetismo y Electrónicaes
dc.coverage.spatialLaboratorio clínicoes
dc.coverage.temporalSiglo XXIes
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-01T11:48:58Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-01T11:48:58Z-
dc.date.created2020-11-23-
dc.date.issued2021-04-05-
dc.identifier.citationPeer J, Vol: 9, e11228, 2021es
dc.identifier.issn2167-8359-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10201/138355-
dc.description©2021. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This document is the Published, version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in PeerJ – the Journal of Life & Environmental Sciences. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11228-
dc.description.abstractBackground Neck pain has a high annual incidence and decreases the cervical active range of motion (ROM). Clinicians use various methods to evaluate cervical range of motion (CROM) that some of them have also been proposed to give instant feedback. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of Veloflex (VF) to measure the CROM by comparison with the cervical range of motion (CROM) device, and to examine their test-retest reliability. Methods Thirty-eight healthy and 20 symptomatic participants were evaluated. Cervical flexion-extension, side bending, and rotations were tested in two sessions, first by the CROM and VF and in the second only with the VF. To evaluate the concurrent validity and agreement between CROM and VF, Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) and Bland–Altmann plots were used. Reliability were evaluated using intra-class correlation (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Results CROM and VF showed excellent correlation for all movements ( r > 0.960). Both devices provided small mean ‘bias’ (≤1.29%) in all movements regarding CROM measures. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the VF was excellent (ICC > 0.98). SEMs ranging from 0.72% to 2.38% and the MDC ranging from 1.22° to 2.60° in all participants. The results support the validity and reliability of VF to measure CROM. For its use, with a basic training is enough to get reliable measurements.es
dc.formatapplication/pdfes
dc.format.extent15es
dc.languageenges
dc.publisherPeer Jes
dc.relationSin financiación externa a la Universidades
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectCervicales
dc.subjectRange of motion-
dc.subjectValidity/reliability-
dc.subjectOptoelectronic device-
dc.subject.otherCDU::62 - Ingeniería. Tecnologíaes
dc.titleValidity and reliability of Veloflex to measure active cervical range of motion in healthy participantses
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11228-
Aparece en las colecciones:Artículos: Electromagnetismo y Electrónica

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción TamañoFormato 
Measuring active cervical range of motion.pdfValidación Veloflex cervical5,73 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir


Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons