AVALIAÇÃO DA AMPLITUDE DE MOVIMENTO DA COLUNA TORÁCICA E LOMBAR: REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA COM METANÁLISE

Valle, Marja Bochechin do; Schmit, Emanuelle Francine Detogni; Sedrez, Juliana Adami; Candotti, Cláudia Tarragô

Marja Bochechin do Valle

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

Emanuelle Francine Detogni Schmit

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

Juliana Adami Sedrez

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

Cláudia Tarragô Candotti

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

Author address
: Marja Bochehin do Valle - Avenida Mariland 156/603, Porto Alegre - RS - E-mail: marjabv@hotmail.com

1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Measuring tape				Results
Bandy ⁽¹⁹⁾	n=63	Sternum-bed distance	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar extension (experienced and unexperienced raters)	Experienced ICC: 0.90-0.91; unexperienced ICC: 0.82-0.86
Beattie ⁽²⁰⁾	n=100	Modified Schöber’s test	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility (n=11) of lumbar extension	Intra-rater ICC: 0.90; Inter-rater ICC: 0.94
Burdett ⁽²¹⁾	n=23	Modified Schöber’s test	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion.	ICC:0.72
Dopf ⁽²²⁾	n=30	Modified Moll’s and modified Schöber’s tests	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.89; Extension: r: 0.66; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.76; Extension: r: 0.54.
Frost ⁽²³⁾	n=24	Finger-floor distance and C7-S2	Intra- and inter-rater repeatability and reproducibility of trunk flexion and extension	Repeatability: Flexion: r: 0.98; Extension: r: 0.96; Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.98; Extension: r: 0.79; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.94; Extension: r: 0.78
Gill ⁽²⁴⁾	n=10	Modified Schöber’s test and finger-floor distance	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: Modified Schöber: CV: 0.9-1.5; Finger-floor: CV: 14.1; Extension: Modified Schöber : CV: 2.8-2.9
Merritt ⁽²⁵⁾	n=50	Modified Schöber’s, Moll’s, Loebl’s tests, and finger-floor distance	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of trunk flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: Finger-floor distance: mean CV: 76.4; Schöber: mean CV: 6.6; Loebl: mean CV: 13.4; Extension: Moll: mean CV: 7.3; Loebl: mean CV: 50.7; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: Finger-floor distance: mean CV: 83.0; Schöber: mean CV: 6.3; Loebl: mean CV: 9.6; Extension: Moll: mean CV: 9.5; Loebl: mean CV: 65.4
Ronchi⁽²⁶⁾	n=23	Modified Schöber’s test	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion	Intra-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.77; Inter-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.74
Miller⁽²⁷⁾	n=50	Modified Schöber’s test	Inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion	r:0.71
1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Paternostro-Sluga⁽²⁸⁾	n=16	Ott’s, Schöber’s, Modified Schöber’s test, and finger-floor distance	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of trunk flexion	Good reproducibility (ICC values not specified)
Hyytiäinen⁽²⁹⁾	n=30	Schöber’s test	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion	Intra-rater reproducibility: r: 0.88; inter-rater: r: 0.87
Van Den Dolder⁽³⁰⁾	n=60	Author’s own methodology	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion	Intra-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.95; Inter-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.96
Inclinometer
Bø⁽³¹⁾	n=16	Digital inclinometer	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of thoracolumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: intra-rater ICC: 0.84-0.92; Inter-rater ICC: 0.83-0.92. Extension: intra-rater ICC: 0.85-0.86; Inter-rater ICC: 0.68-0.88
Breum⁽³²⁾	n=47	Modified inclinometer (BROM II)	Intra-, inter-rater reproducibility and validity of lumbar flexion and extension (dual inclinometer)	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.91; Extension: ICC: 0.63; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.77; Extension: ICC: 0.35; Validity: Flexion: ICC: 0.75; Extension: ICC: 0.63
Dopf⁽²²⁾	n=30	Dual inclinometer	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.92; Extension: r: 0.93; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.71; Extension: r: 0.78
Gill⁽²⁴⁾	n=10	Dual inclinometer	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: CV: 9.3-33.9; Extension: CV: 2.8-4.7
Kolber⁽³³⁾	n=30	Inclinometer and mobile device (inclinometer - iPhone)	Intra-, inter-rater reproducibility and validity (inclinometer) of lumbar and trunk flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: iPhone: lumbar: ICC: 0.88; thoracolumbopelvic: ICC: 0.97; Inclinometer: lumbar: ICC: 0.83; thoracolumbopelvic: ICC: 0.96; Extension (thoracolumbopelvic only): iPhone: only: 0,80; Inclinometer: ICC: 0.88; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: iPhone: lumbar: only: 0.88; thoracolumbopelvic: ICC: 0.98; Inclinometer: lumbar: ICC: 0,81; thoracolumbopelvic: ICC: 0.97; Extension (thoracolumbopelvic only): iPhone: ICC: 0,81; Inclinometer: ICC: 0.91; Validity: Flexion: lumbar: ICC: 0.86-0.87; thoracolumbopelvic: ICC: 0.97-0.98; Extension (thoracolumbopelvic only): ICC: 0.89-0.91
1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Mayer⁽³⁴⁾	n=18	Inclinometer and electroinclinometer	Intra- and inter-rater repeatability and reproducibility of lumbar flexion	All instruments presented repeatability (r 0.89) and intra- (F=1,39, df=13.319) and inter-rater (F=1.62, df=1.319) reproducibility
Mellin⁽³⁵⁾	n=27	Inclinometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of thoracolumbar flexion and extension.	Flexion: r: 0.91-0.95; Extension: r: 0.72-0.92
Ng⁽³⁶⁾	n=12	Modified inclinometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: ICC: 0.87; Extension: ICC: 0.92
Ronchi⁽²⁶⁾	n=23	Dual inclinometer	Intra and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.95; Extension: ICC: 0.94; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.89; Extension: ICC: 0.91
Chiarello⁽³⁷⁾	n=12	Electroinclinometer	Inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.74; Extension: ICC: 0.65-0.85
Rondinelli⁽³⁸⁾	n=8	An inclinometer, dual inclinometer and electroinclinometer (Back ROM)	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion	Intra-rater reproducibility: An inclinometer: ICC: 0.85-0.86; Dual inclinometer: ICC: 0.70-0.81; Back ROM: ICC I: 0.81-0.90; Inter-rater reproducibility: An inclinometer: ICC: 0.76; Dual inclinometer: ICC: 0.69; Back ROM: ICC: 0.77
Boocock⁽³⁹⁾	n=12	Inclinometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar ROM	Intra-rater reproducibility: r: 0.96
Goniometer
Bedekar⁽⁴⁰⁾	n=30	iPod Mobile Device (goniometer)	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion, concurrent validity (dual inclinometer)	Intra-rater: ICC: 0.92; Inter-rater: ICC: 0.81; Validity: r: 0.95
Chiarello⁽³⁷⁾	n=12	Two goniometers	Inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.57; Extension: CCI: 0.59-0.67
Burdett⁽²¹⁾	n=27	Modified Gravity Goniometers and Parallelogram	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension. Validity of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: Gravity Goniometer: ICC: 0.91; Parallelogram Goniometer: ICC: 0.92; Extension: Gravity Goniometer: ICC: 0.71; Parallelogram Goniometer: ICC: 0.60; Validity: Flexion: Gravity Goniometer: ICC: -0.11; Parallelogram Goniometer: ICC: 0.19; Extension: Gravity Goniometer: ICC: -0.73; Parallelogram Goniometer: ICC: -0.71
1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Salisbury⁽⁴¹⁾	n=17	Goniometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: MAD: 3.80±2.95; Extension: MAD: 3.10±1.98
Salisbury⁽⁴¹⁾	n=17	Goniometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: MAD: 3.80±2.95; Extension: MAD: 3.10±1.98
Boocock⁽³⁹⁾	n=12	Electrogoniometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar ROM	Intra-rater reproducibility: r: 0.78.
Paquet⁽⁴²⁾	n=10	Electrogoniometer	Repeatability and validity (two inclinometers) of trunk flexion	Validity: r: 0.97; Repeatability: ICC: 0.98
Tojima⁽⁴³⁾	n=7	Electrogoniometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: ICC: 0.80; extension: ICC: 0.63
Motion Analysis System
Gill⁽⁴⁴⁾	n=15	Video Motion Analysis System	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility (10 individuals) of trunk flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.87; Extension: r: 0.85; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.93; Extension: r: 0.96
Mannion⁽⁴⁵⁾	n=11	3D motion analysis system OSI CA-6000 and Space Fastrak	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	Repeatability: r: 0.82-0.99, with high ICC (values not specified)
Petersen⁽⁴⁶⁾	n=21	3D motion analysis system (OSI CA-6000)	Intra and inter-rater reproducibility (raters with and without experience) of thoracolumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.90-0.96; Extension: ICC: 0.96; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.93; Extension: ICC: 0.95
Pearcy⁽⁴⁷⁾	n=10	3D motion analysis system (3 SPACE Isotrak)	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	RMS error: 0.079
Dopf ⁽²²⁾	n=30	3D motion analysis system (OSI CA-6000)	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.94; Extension: r: 0.94; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.76; Extension: r: 0.84.
Tojima⁽⁴³⁾	n=7	3D motion analysis system (VICON)	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: ICC: 0.77; extension: ICC: 0.80.
Troke⁽⁴⁸⁾	n=22	3D motion analysis system (OSI CA-6000)	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.81-0.94; Inter-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.73-0.82
1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Schuit⁽⁴⁹⁾	n=10	3D Motion Analysis System (OSI CA-6000) and X-Ray	Inter-rater reproducibility and validity of trunk flexion and extension	Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: X-ray: ICC: 0.93; OSI: CCI: 0.99; Extension: X-ray: ICC: 0.85; OSI: ICC: 0.98; Validity: Flexion: r: 0.100; Extension: r: 0.394
Schuit⁽⁴⁹⁾	n=10	3D Motion Analysis System (OSI CA-6000) and X-Ray	Inter-rater reproducibility and validity of trunk flexion and extension	Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: X-ray: ICC: 0.93; OSI: ICC: 0.99; Extension: X-ray: ICC: 0.85; OSI: ICC: 0.98; Validity: Flexion: r: 0.100; Extension: r: 0.394
Flexicurve
Tillotson⁽⁵⁰⁾	n=20	Flexicurve	Intra-rater reproducibility and concurrent validity (X-ray) of lumbar flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: r: 0.95-0.97; Extension: r: 0.96-0.97; Validity: ROM: r: 0.98.
Burton⁽⁵¹⁾	n=15	Flexicurve	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension, validity (X-rays, n=1)	Intra-rater reproducibility: r: 0.95-0.97; Inter-rater reproducibility: r: 0.82-0.99; validity: the flexicurve presented superior angulation (greater by 1º) to X-ray
Burton⁽⁵²⁾	Not presented	Flexicurve	Intra and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra- (9% error) and inter-rater (7-15%) reproducibility
Youdas⁽⁵³⁾	n=10	Flexicurve	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.90-0.95; Extension: ICC: 0.96-0.98; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.84-0.91; Extension: ICC: 0.97-0.98
Boocock⁽³⁹⁾	n=12	Flexicurve	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar ROM	Intra-rater reproducibility: r: 0.86
Accelerometers
Alqhtani⁽⁵⁴⁾	n=18	Triaxial accelerometer	Reproducibility of thoracolumbar flexion and extension.	Thoracic: flexion (ICC: 0.97-0.99) and extension (ICC: 0.92-0.96); Lumbar: flexion (ICC: 0.95-0.98) and extension (ICC: 0.96-0.97)
Consmuller⁽⁵⁵⁾	n=30	Accelerometer	Intra-rater reproducibility of thoracolumbar flexion and extension.	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.86; Extension: ICC: 0,84
Ronchi⁽²⁶⁾	n=23	Accelerometer	Intra and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.99; Extension: ICC: 0.98; Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.95; Extension: ICC: 0.95
1st Author	Sample	Instrument	Assessed Aspect	Results
Photogrammetry
Tederko⁽⁵⁶⁾	n=12	Photometry	Repeatability and reproducibility of thoracic ROM	ICCs between 0.951 and 0.958 (no expressed isolated values per movement and assessed aspect)
Gill⁽²⁴⁾	n=10	Photogrammetry	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: CV: 6.0-22.3; Extension: CV; 11.3-12.4
Edmondston⁽⁵⁷⁾	n=14	Photogrammetry	Validity of thoracic extension ROM (X-ray).	r:0.69
Inertial System
Ha⁽⁵⁸⁾	n=26	Inertial System (Xsems MTx)	Validity (with Fastrak) of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: r: 0.88; Extension: r: 0.66
Yun⁽⁵⁹⁾	n=19	Inertial system	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra-rater reproducibility: ICC: 0.90-0.98
Other Instruments
Roussel⁽⁶⁰⁾	n=61	Isokinetic dynamometer	Inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Inter-rater reproducibility: Flexion: ICC: 0.77; Extension: ICC: 0.93-0.94;
Williams⁽⁶¹⁾	n=13	Fiber Optic System	Repeatability and validity (3D motion analysis system) of lumbar flexion	Repeatability: r: 0.94-0.97; Validity: r: 0.86-0.95
Lee⁽⁶²⁾	n=19	3D Gyroscope	Repeatability of lumbar flexion and extension	Multiple correlation coefficient: 0.97-0.99
Salisbury⁽⁴¹⁾	n=17	Kyphometer, Goniometer and Flexicurve, measuring tape and ultrasound	Intra-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Flexion: kyphometer MAD: 2.95 ± 2.96; MAD Goniometer: 3.80 ± 2.95 and Flexicurve MAD: 3.15±2.0.
Cohn⁽⁶³⁾	n=19	Electromagnetic Sensors	Intra and inter-rater reproducibility of lumbar flexion and extension	Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility with ICC> 0.9.
Fölsch⁽⁶⁴⁾	n=28	Ultrasonic analysis system	Intra-rater reproducibility of thoracic flexion and extension.	Flexion: ICC: 0.71; Extension: ICC: 0.34

1st Author

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Quality

Quality %

Alqhtani⁵⁴54. Alqhtani RS, Jones MD, Theobald P, Williams J. Reliability of an accelerometer- based system for quantifying multiregional spinal range of motion. J Manipulative PhysiolTher 2015;38(4):275-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.12.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.12.0...

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

55.56

Bandy¹⁹19. Bandy WD, Reese NB. Strapped versus unstrapped technique of the prone press-up for measurement of lumbar extension using a tape measure: differences in magnitude and reliability of measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;1(85):99-103. DOI:10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00430-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00...

y

n/a

y

s

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

8

88.9

Beattie²⁰20. Beattie P, Rothstein JM, Lamb R. Reliability of the attraction method for measuring lumbar spine backward bending. Phys Ther 1987;67(3):364-369.

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

55.6

Bedekar⁴⁰40. Bedekar N, Suryawanshi M, Rairikar S, Sancheti P, Shyam A. Inter and intra-rater reliability of mobile device goniometer in measuring lumbar flexion range of motion. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2014;27(2):161-166. DOI: 10.3233/BMR-130431
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-130431...

y

n/a

y

s

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

8

88.9

Bø³¹31. Bo K, Storheim HK. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of Cybex ED1 320 measuring spinal mobility. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1997;7:140-143. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.1997.tb00130.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1997...

y

n/a

y

s

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

8

88.9

Boocock³⁹39. Boocock MG, Jackson JA, Burton AK, Tillotson KM. Continuous measurement of lumbar posture using flexible electrogoniometers. Ergonomics 1994;37(1):175-185. DOI: 10.1080/00140139408963636
https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013940896363...

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

9

69.2

Breum³²32. Breum J, Wiberg J, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of the BROM II for measuring lumbar mobility. J Manipulative Physiol Ther1995;18(8):497-502.

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

8

61.5

Burdett²¹21. Burdett RG, Kathryn PF, Brown PF, Michael PF. Reliability and validity of four instruments for measuring lumbar spine and pelvic positions. Phys Ther 1986;66(5):677-684.

y

n

y

n

y

6

46.2

Burton⁵¹51. Burton AK. Regional lumbar sagittal mobility: Measurement by flexicurves. Clin Biomechanics 1986;1:20-26. DOI: 10.1016/0268-0033(86)90032-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(86)900...

n

y

n

y

4

44.4

Burton⁵²52. Burton AK. Measurement of regional lumbar sagittal mobility. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1987;166-169.

n

0

0.0

Chiarello³⁷37. Chiarello CM, Savidge R. Inter-rater reliability of the Cybex EDI-320 and fluid goniometer in normals and patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:32-37.

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

4

44.4

Cohn⁶³63. Cohn ML, Machado AF, Cohn SJ. Low-Frequency magnetic field technology: Quantifying spinal range of motion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;70(6):455-457. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9993(89)90006-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9993(89)900...

y

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

6

66.7

Consmuller⁵⁵55. Consmuller T, Rohlmann A, Weinland D, Druschel C, Duda G, Taylor W. Comparative evaluation of a novel measurement tool to assess lumbar spine posture and range of motion. Eur Spine J 2012;21(11):2170-2180. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2312-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2312-...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

4

50.0

Dopf²²22. Dopf CA, Mandel SS, Geiger D, Mayer P. Analysis of spine motion variability using a computerized goniometer compared to physical examination. A prospective clinical study. Spine 1994;19(5):586-595.

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

8

61.5

Edmondston⁵⁷57. Edmondston SJ, Christensen M, Keller S, MClinPhysio PT, Steigen L, Barclay L. Functional radiographic analysis of thoracic spine extension motion in asymptomatic men. J Manipulative PhysiolTher 2012;35(3):203-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.01.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.01.0...

y

n

y

n

6

46.15

Fölsch⁶⁴64. Fölsch C, Schlögel S, Lakemeier S, Wolf U, Timmesfeld N, Skwara A. Test-Retest Reliability of 3D Ultrasound Measurements of the Thoracic Spine. AAPMR 2012;4(5):335-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.01.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.01.0...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

4

44.4

Frost²³23. Frost M, Stuckey S, Smalley LA, Dorman G. Reliability of measuring trunk motions in centimeters. Phys Ther 1982; 62:1431-1437.

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

6

66.7

Gill²⁴24. Gill K, Krag HM, Johnson GB, Haugh LD, Popo MH. Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion. Spine 1988;13(1):50-53. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198801000-00012
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-1988010...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

4

44.4

Gill⁴⁴44. Gill KP, Callaghan MJ. Intratester and intertester reproducibility of the lumbar motion monitor as a measure of range, velocity and acceleration of the thoracolumbar spine. Clin Biomechanics 1996;11(7):418-421. DOI:10.1016/0268-0033(96)00031-9
https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/0268-0033(96...

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

55.6

Ha⁵⁸58. Ha T, Sheikh K, Moore AP, Jones MP. Measurement of lumbar spine range of movement and coupled motion using inertial sensors - A protocol validity study. Man Ther 2013;18:87-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2012.04.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.04.0...

y

n

y

n/a

n

y

n

y

6

66.7

Hyytiainen²⁹29. Hyytiainen K, Salminen JJ, Suvitie T, Wickström G, Pentti J. Reproducibility of nine tests to measure spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991;23(1):3-10.

y

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

5

55.6

Kolber³³33. Kolber MJ, Pizzini M, Robinson A, Yanez D, Hanney WJ. The reliability and concurrent validity of measurements used to quantify lumbar spine mobility: an analysis of an iphone (R) application and gravity based inclinometry. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2013;8(2):129-137.

y

n

y

s

n

y

n

y

10

76.9

Lee⁶²62. Lee RYW, Laprade J, Fung EHK. A real-time gyroscopic system for three-dimensional measurement of lumbar spine motion. Med Eng Phys 2003;25:817-824. DOI: 10.1016/S1350-4533(03)00115-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(03)00...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

2

22.2

Mannion⁴⁶46. Petersen CM, Johnson RD, Schuit D, Hayes K. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of asymptomatic subjects thoracolumbar range of motion using the OSI CA 6000 spine motion analyzer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994;20(4):207-212. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.4.207
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1994.20.4....

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

4

30.8

Mayer³⁴34. Mayer RS, Chen I, Lavender SA, Trafimow JH, Andersson GBJ. Variance in the meansurement of sagital lumbar spine range od motion among examiners, subjects, and instruments. Spine 1995;20(13):1489-1493. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199507000-00008
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-1995070...

y

n/a

n

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

4

44.4

Mellin²⁵25. Merritt JL, Mclean TJ, Erickson RP, Offord K. Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: Reproducibility of three clinical methods. Mayo Clinic Proc 1986;61(3):192-197. DOI: 10.590/1809-2950/13088921042014
https://doi.org/10.590/1809-2950/1308892...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n

4

44.4

Merritt³⁶36. Ng JKF, Kippers V, Richardson C, Parnianpour M. Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: Reliability of measurement and normative values. Spine 2001;26(1):53-60.

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

4

44.4

Miller²⁷27. Miller SA, Mayer T,Cox R, Gatchel R. Reliability problems associated with the modified Schober technique for true lumbar flexion measurement. Spine 1992;17(3):345-348. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199203000-00017
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-1992030...

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

5

62.5

Ng³⁶36. Ng JKF, Kippers V, Richardson C, Parnianpour M. Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: Reliability of measurement and normative values. Spine 2001;26(1):53-60.

y

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

4

50.0

Paquet⁴²42. Paquet N, Malouin F, Richards C, Dionne JP, Comeau F. Validity and reliability of a new electrogoniometer for the measurement of sagittal dorsolumbar movements. Spine 1991;16(5):516-519.

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

6

46.2

Paternostro-Sluga²⁸28. Paternostro-Sluga T, Preisinger E, Resh KL, Ernst E. How reproducible is the functional assessment of the spine? Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 1995;5(4):122-125.

y

n

n/a

y

s

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

6

66.7

Pearcy⁴⁷47. Pearcy MJ, Hindle RJ. New method for the non-invasive three-dimensional measurement of human back movement. Clin Biomechanics 1989;4:73-79. DOI:10.1016/0268-0033(89)90042-9

y

n

y

n

2

15.4

Petersen⁴⁶46. Petersen CM, Johnson RD, Schuit D, Hayes K. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of asymptomatic subjects thoracolumbar range of motion using the OSI CA 6000 spine motion analyzer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994;20(4):207-212. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.4.207
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1994.20.4....

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

38.8

Ronchi²⁶26. Ronchi AJ, Lech M, Taylor NF, Cosic I. A reliability study of the new Back Strain Monitor based on clinical trials. 30th Annual Internacional IEEE Conference. Vancouver; 2008, p.693-696. DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2008.4649247
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2008.46492...

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

38.8

Rondinelli⁴⁰40. Bedekar N, Suryawanshi M, Rairikar S, Sancheti P, Shyam A. Inter and intra-rater reliability of mobile device goniometer in measuring lumbar flexion range of motion. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2014;27(2):161-166. DOI: 10.3233/BMR-130431
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-130431...

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

6

46.2

Roussel⁶⁰60. Roussel N, Nijs J, Truijen S, Breugelmans S, Claes I, Stassijns G. Reliability of the Assessment of Lumbar Range of Motion and Maximal Isometric Strength. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87(4)576-582. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.01.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.01.0...

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

3

33.3

Salisbury⁴¹41. Salisbury PJ, Porter R. Measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility: A comparison of methods. Spine 1987;2(2):190-193.

y

n

n/a

n

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

3

33.3

Schuit⁴⁹49. Schuit D, Petersen C, Johnson R, Levine P, Knecht H, Goldberg D. Validity and reliability of measures obtained from the OSI CA-6000 Spine Motion Analyzer for lumbar spinal motion. Man Ther 1997;2(4):206-215. DOI: 10.1054/math.1997.0301
https://doi.org/10.1054/math.1997.0301...

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

8

61.5

Tederko⁵⁶56. Tederko P, Krasuski M, Maciejasz P. Restrainer of pelvis and lower limbs in thoracic and lumbar range of motion measurement - preliminary report. OrtopTraumatolRehabil 2007;2(6):156-167.

y

n

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

3

33.3

Tillotson⁵⁰50. Tillotson KM, Burton AK. Noninvasive measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility an assessment of the flexicurve technique. Spine 1991;16(1):29-33.

y

n

y

n

y

8

61.5

Tojima⁴³43. Tojima M, Ogata N, Yozu A, Sumitani M, Haga N. Novel 3-dimensional motion analysis method for measuring the lumbar spine range of motion repeatability and reliability compared with an electrogoniometer. Spine 2013;38(21):1327-1333. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a0dbc5
https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a0...

y

n

y

n

y

n

y

9

69.2

Troke⁴⁸48. Troke M, Schuit D, Petersen CM. Reliability of lumbar spinal palpation, range of motion, and determination of position. BMC MusculoskeletDisord2007;8(103):1-6. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-8-103
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-103...

y

n/a

n

y

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

6

66.7

Van DenDolder³⁰30. Van Den Dolder PA, Ferreira PH, Refshauge K. Intra and inter-rater reliability of a modified measure of hand behind back range of motion. Man Ther 2014;19(1):72-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2013.08.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2013.08.0...

y

n/a

y

s

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

7

77.8

Williams⁶¹61. Williams, JM, Haq, Lee RY. Dynamic measurement of lumbar curvature using fibre-optic sensors. Med Eng Phys 2010;32(9):1043-1049. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.07.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010...

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n

y

7

77.8

Youdas⁵³53. Youdas JW, Suman VJ, Garrett TR. Reliability of measurements of lumbar spine sagittal mobility obtained with the flexible curve. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995;21(1):13-20. DOI:10.2519/jospt.1995.21.1.13
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1995.21.1....

y

n/a

n

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

4

44.4

Yun⁵⁹59. Yun w, Kim H, Ahn JH, Park Y, Park Y. Individual characteristics of reliable lumbar coupling motions. Eur Spine J 2015;24:1917-1925. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4081-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4081-...

y

n/a

n

n/a

y

n/a

y

n/a

n

y

5

55.6

Study	Sample Size	Correlation Coefficient	95% IC	z	p		Weight (%)
						Fixed		Random
Dopf⁽²²⁾	30	0.76	0.55 - 0.88			36.49		36.49
Miller⁽²⁷⁾	50	0.71	0.54 - 0.83			63.51		63.51
Total	80	0.73	0.60 - 0.82	7.97	<0.001	100.00		100.00
(fixed effects)
Total (random effects)	80	0.73	0.60 - 0.82	7.97	<0.001	100.00		100.00

Study	Sample Size	Correlation Coefficient	95% IC	z	p		Weight (%)
						Fixed		Random
Tillotson⁽⁵⁰⁾	20	0.96	0.90 - 0.98			44.74		41.86
Burton⁽⁵¹⁾	15	0.95	0.86 - 0.98			31.58		32.38
Boocock⁽³⁹⁾	12	0.86	0.57 - 0.96			23.68		25.76
Total (fixed effects)	47	0.94	0.89 - 0.97	10.82	<0.001	100.00		100.00
Total (random effects)	47	0.94	0.88 - 0.97	9.3	<0.001	100.00		100.00

Study	Sample Size	Correlation Coefficient (r)	95% IC	z	p		Weight (%)
						Fixed		Random
Tillotson⁽⁵⁰⁾	20	0.95	0.88 - 0.98			44.74		44.74
Burton⁽⁵¹⁾	15	0.95	0.85 - 0.98			31.58		31.58
Boocock⁽³⁹⁾	12	0.86	0.57 - 0.96			23.68		23.68
Total (fixed effects)	47	0.94	0.88 - 0.97	10.51	<0.001	100.00		100.00
Total (random effects)	47	0.94	0.88 - 0.97	10.51	<0.001	100.00		100.00

[1] Author address
: Marja Bochehin do Valle - Avenida Mariland 156/603, Porto Alegre - RS - E-mail: marjabv@hotmail.com

Study	Size Sample	Correlation Coefficient (r)	95% IC	z	p		Weight (%)
						Fixed		Random
Gill⁽⁴⁴⁾	10	0.87	0.53 - 0.97			20.59		20.59
Dopf⁽²²⁾	30	0.94	0.88 - 0.97			79.41		79.41
Total (fixed effects)	40	0.93	0.87 - 0.96	9.65	<0.001	100.00		100.00
Total (random effects)	40	0.93	0.87 - 0.96	9.65	<0.001	100.00		100.00

Brasil

Brasil

AVALIAÇÃO DA AMPLITUDE DE MOVIMENTO DA COLUNA TORÁCICA E LOMBAR: REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA COM METANÁLISE

RESUMO