Wrist-Based Accelerometers and Visual Analog Scales as Outcome Measures for Shoulder Activity During Daily Living in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: Instrument Validation Study.
Samuel Larrivée, Frédéric Balg, Guillaume Léonard and 3 others
PMID 31793896WHAT IT FOUND
Wrist accelerometers were acceptable to patients but failed to correlate with standard shoulder questionnaires or clinical exams.
Daily pain scores and a single numeric evaluation were reliable and sensitive to change, while activity ratings showed poor convergence with objective movement data.
Key findings
01Wrist-based accelerometer measures showed no significant correlation with standard shoulder questionnaires (WORC, QuickDASH) or clinical strength and range of motion tests.
02Daily pain Visual Analog Scales and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation demonstrated excellent reliability and strong sensitivity to change after treatment.
03Patients accepted the wrist device with minimal discomfort, though a software malfunction caused significant data loss during the study.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
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
A software malfunction caused 31.2% data loss, severely limiting the analysis of accelerometer validity. The study was embedded in a pilot RCT involving corticosteroid injections, so changes in activity may reflect treatment effects rather than pure instrument performance. Only 24 participants had valid accelerometer data for the initial validity checks, reducing power. The wrist device measured activity counts, which may not accurately reflect shoulder-specific movement patterns or functional capacity.
Declared interests
None declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that objective movement data from wrist sensors is superior to patient-reported outcomes for shoulder conditions. In this study, the sensors failed to correlate with standard clinical measures and were less sensitive to change than simple pain and function questionnaires.