Test-retest reliability of a novel unilateral thoracic expansion measurement using stretchable strain sensors.
Motoki Yamanaka, Kazuki Yamaguchi, Keiji Asada
PMID 41036529WHAT IT FOUND
In 30 healthy men, a new stretchable sensor measured left and right chest expansion separately, repeated well, and found similar side-to-side values.
For one person, a difference under 3.31 mm may be measurement error, not real change.
Key findings
01Thirty healthy men performed two sets of simultaneous left and right thoracic expansion measurements using two sensor belts.
02The sensor repeated well: ICC values were 0.99 for the two measurements and 0.96 for retest, and changes greater than 3.31 mm could be interpreted as real with 95% confidence.
03Left and right expansion did not differ significantly in either set, and 2 of 30 participants had side-to-side differences exceeding the MDC.
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.
What it does not show
The study included only 30 healthy young adult men, so it does not show how the method performs in women, older adults, or patients with stroke, scoliosis, or hemi-thoracic surgery. Only one physical therapist performed the measurements, and the paper states that only intra-assessor reliability was examined, so reliability between different clinicians is unknown. The method was not tested in the patient group it is meant to help, so its usefulness for stroke rehabilitation is not established.
Declared interests
No funding was received for the study, and the authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the repeatability results as proof that this sensor can diagnose or guide treatment in stroke patients. It was tested only in 30 healthy men, and in one person a difference under 3.31 mm may be measurement error.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →