• Ghorbani F
• Kamyab M
• Azadinia F

• Affiliation / Iran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. School of Rehabilitation Sciences. Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics
• Affiliation / Iran University of Medical Sciences. Orthotics and Prosthetics Department
• Affiliation(G) / Iran / Tehran
• Neck Pain
• Open Access Document
• Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
• Range of Motion, Articular
• Reproducibility of Results
• Smartphone

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliabilities of the cervical range-of-motion (CROM) device and a dual digital inclinometer (as accepted clinical tools) and iPhone or Android smartphone applications (clinometer and compass; as new technologies) in measuring cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain.

Methods: Twenty participants (13 women, 7 men; age 19-33 years) with neck pain persisting for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Neck movements were measured in each participant using 4 noninvasive devices in random order.

Results: The CROM device showed excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities in assessing cervical range of motion except in right rotation for which it showed moderate intrarater reliability. The dual digital inclinometer demonstrated moderate to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Cervical range of motion measurements using iPhone applications showed good to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities, whereas Android applications had poor to excellent intra- and interrater reliabilities. Based on the validity results, all assessment tools differed from the CROM device depending on the direction of movement, although the iPhone applications showed fewer differences than the other 2 devices.

Conclusion: Generally, the CROM device showed the highest reproducibility, and iPhone applications showed more acceptable intra- and interrater reliabilities than the digital inclinometer and Android applications. The clinometer application of smartphones could be reliable in measuring frontal and sagittal cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain and in a sitting position. However, the compass application of the iPhone showed acceptable results, whereas that of the Android device could not be recommended for clinical use.

Author keywords: Range of Motion; Articular; Smartphone; Reproducibility of Results; Outcome and Process Assessment; Health Care; Neck Pain

Author affiliations: Orthotics and Prosthetics Department, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. PubMed Record | PDF