Publication:
Validity and reliability of Veloflex to measure active cervical range of motion in healthy participants

Simple item page
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.departmentElectromagnetismo y Electrónica
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.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.identifier.citationPeer J, Vol: 9, e11228, 2021
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11228
dc.identifier.issn2167-8359
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10201/138355
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
dspace.entity.typePublicationes
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Measuring active cervical range of motion.pdf
Size:
5.59 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Validación Veloflex cervical
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.26 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Artículos