PTOtherJournal of physical therapy science2025

Reliability of photogrammetric evaluation of the craniovertebral angle, swayback posture, and knee hyperextension in university students.

Konstantinos Mylonas, Georgios Chatzis, Vasiliki Makrypidi and 7 others

PMID 40171184

WHAT IT FOUND

Smartphone photographs measured head, trunk, and knee posture consistently across physiotherapists and on repeat testing in healthy university students.

PTs can consider this for healthy young adults, but not as evidence it is reliable for patients.

Key findings

01Photogrammetric photos showed high agreement across four physiotherapists for craniovertebral angle, swayback posture, and knee hyperextension.

02One physiotherapist's measurements agreed strongly when repeated 24 hours later.

03The study included only healthy university students, so it does not establish reliability in clinical populations.

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 participants were healthy university students, not patients, so the results do not show how the method performs in people with pain, neurological conditions, or age-related postural changes. The study tested reliability, not accuracy against radiographs or motion capture, so it does not show the measured angles are correct. Only craniovertebral angle, swayback posture, and knee hyperextension were tested, so reliability for other postural deviations is unknown. Raters were specially trained and followed a strict protocol, so ordinary clinic conditions may not produce the same agreement. The measurement setting was controlled and homogeneous, so real-world clinic or community factors may affect posture and measurement.

Declared interests

The author declares no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that photogrammetry is accurate for diagnosing or treating patients. This study tested agreement between trained raters in healthy university students, not agreement with radiographs or performance in clinical populations.

Read it on PubMed →