↓ Skip to main content

The smartphone inclinometer: A new tool to determine elbow range of motion?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
The smartphone inclinometer: A new tool to determine elbow range of motion?
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00590-017-2058-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frédéric Vauclair, Abdulaziz Aljurayyan, Fahad H. Abduljabbar, Bardia Barimani, Patrick Goetti, Fiona Houghton, Edward J. Harvey, Dominique M. Rouleau

Abstract

There are easily accessible tools on smartphones (APP) for measuring elbow range of motion (ROM). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of a particular APP in determining elbow ROM in comparison with the commonly used goniometer (GON), surgeon estimation of range (EST) and measurement on X-ray (XR). The study included 20 patients (40 elbows). Flexion, extension, pronation and supination were measured using three different methods: EST, GON and APP. Radiographic measurements were taken using the average humeral diaphysis axis and dorsal midthird of ulna in flexion and extension. The accuracy of the three different methods has been compared to GON using statistical analysis (ANOVA and paired samples test). There was no statistically significant difference for XR flexion measurement (mean of 2.8° ± 1.5°). The APP overestimated flexion (mean of 6.4° ± 1.0°), and EST underestimated it (mean of - 7.9° ± 1.1°). For extension, the mean difference was 2.8° ± 0.7° for EST and - 26.8° ± 3.1° for XR. The APP method did not significantly differ from GON. Supination accuracy was greater with EST (2.7° ± 1.7°) than with APP (5.9° ± 1.9°). There was no difference for pronation measurement with both EST and APP. This study is the first comparing four measurement techniques of elbow ROM. Our results showed that EST was only accurate for forearm rotation. The XR scored the best for flexion but is less reliable for extension. Surprisingly, compared to GON, APP did not correlate as we expected for flexion and supination, but the other methods were also inaccurate. We found APP to be very useful to measure complete arc of motion (difference between maximal flexion and maximal extension). III, Retrospective review of a prospective cohort of elbow fracture patients: Diagnostic Study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 24%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 28 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 31 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,574,814
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#459
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,788
of 327,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 882 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.