PTOtherJournal of physical therapy science2022

Clinical reliability and usability of smartphone goniometers for hip range of motion measurement.

Yugo Takeda, Katsuhiro Furukawa

PMID 35698549

WHAT IT FOUND

A smartphone goniometer matched a traditional tool for reliability when the same therapist measured the same hip repeatedly.

It was rated easier to see and hold, but harder to align. Different therapists using it showed poor agreement, so it is not yet ready for shared patient records.

Key findings

01Intra-rater reliability was acceptable (ICC >= 0.72) for all hip movements for both the smartphone and the universal goniometer.

02Inter-rater reliability was low for both devices, with smartphone ICCs ranging from 0.36 to 0.73 across movements.

03Therapists rated the smartphone as superior for visibility and holding, but inferior for setting the measurement axis compared to the universal goniometer.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study only included three examiners, so the inter-rater reliability findings may not generalise to a wider team. Patients were elderly daycare users with some medical conditions, which may have made positioning and consistent measurement difficult. The usability survey was completed by the same three examiners who performed the measurements, introducing potential bias. No standardised protocol for smartphone axis alignment was established, which the authors suggest affected reliability.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that because the smartphone was rated as more user-friendly and visible, it is more accurate or reliable between clinicians. Inter-rater reliability was poor for both devices, meaning two therapists measuring the same hip will likely get different results regardless of which tool they use.

Read it on PubMed →