Joint kinematic assessment using an electromagnetic tracking device (EMTD) requires palpation-digitization (PD) of bony landmarks to define the anatomical axes. Errors in PD of bony landmarks can perturb the anatomical axes and affect the validity and reliability of kinematic measurements. The validity and reliability of PD for kinematic measurement needs to be explored before recommending its wider use. A systematic search of 15 electronic databases located studies assessing validity and/or reliability of PD for joint kinematic assessment. Two independent reviewers used the QUADAS and QAREL tools to assess quality of validity and reliability studies respectively. The results were synthesized qualitatively using a level of evidence approach. Eight studies satisfied the final eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The validity, intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability were assessed in three, seven and one study respectively. The overall level of evidence for validity of PD technique was strong with high correlation (≥0.80) reported by three high (≥60%) quality studies. The overall level of evidence for intra-rater reliability was also strong with very high ICC (≥0.90) and satisfactory SEM (SEM% ≤ 10%) reported by four high quality studies. However the level of evidence for inter-rater reliability was limited and needs to be addressed by future research.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,850,658
of 27,782,313 outputs
Outputs from Manual Therapy
#628
of 903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,560
of 183,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Manual Therapy
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,782,313 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 183,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
