AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate how consistently different physiotherapists can estimate shoulder range of motion (ROM) visually and how this consistency is affected by patients' clinical characteristics.
  • The research involved examining 201 patients with shoulder issues across various health care settings in the Netherlands and used test-retest analyses to measure agreement and reliability of ROM estimations.
  • Results showed low consistency in estimating active and passive elevation of the shoulder, particularly in patients with significant pain and disability, but overall visual assessments were generally reliable for distinguishing differences between affected and unaffected shoulders, except for horizontal adduction.

Article Abstract

Objectives: To assess interobserver reproducibility (agreement and reliability) of visually estimated shoulder range of motion (ROM) and to study the influence of clinical characteristics on the reproducibility.

Design: Test-retest analyses.

Setting: Various health care settings in the Netherlands.

Participants: Consecutive patients with shoulder complaints (N = 201) referred by 20 general practitioners, 2 orthopedic physicians, and 20 rheumatologists.

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures: Independent visual estimation by 2 physiotherapists of the ROM. Agreement was calculated as the mean difference in visual estimation between examiners +/-1.96 x standard deviations of this mean difference. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability, based on a 2-way random effects analysis of variance.

Results: The lowest level of agreement was for visual estimation of active and passive elevation (limits of agreement, -43.4 to 39.8 and -46.7 to 41.5, respectively, for the difference between the affected and contralateral sides), for which the level of agreement was most clearly associated with pain severity and disability. The ability to differentiate between subjects was acceptable for all movements for the difference between the affected and contralateral sides (ICCs, > .70) except for horizontal adduction (ICC = .49).

Conclusions: Interobserver agreement was low for the assessment of active and passive elevation, especially for patients with a high pain severity and disability. Except for horizontal adduction, visual estimation seems suitable for distinguishing differences between affected and contralateral ROM between subjects.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.12.031DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

visual estimation
20
interobserver reproducibility
8
range motion
8
level agreement
8
active passive
8
passive elevation
8
difference contralateral
8
contralateral sides
8
pain severity
8
severity disability
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!