Video Rasterstereography of the spine and pelvis in eight erect positions : a reliability study

Alzyoud, K ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-0827, Hogg, P ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-0827, Snaith, B, Preece, SJ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2434-732X and England, A 2020, 'Video Rasterstereography of the spine and pelvis in eight erect positions : a reliability study' , Radiography, 26 (1) , e7-e13.

[img] PDF - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 27 June 2020.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 4.0.

Download (653kB) | Request a copy
[img] Microsoft Word (Article) - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Introduction

To investigate the reliability and variability of Video Rasterstereography (VR) measurements of the spine and pelvis, for eight proposed standing postures, in order to help define an optimal standing position for erect pelvis radiography.

Methods

Surface topography data were collected using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system. 61 healthy participants were recruited; each participant performed eight different standing positions. Four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and parallel, and four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and internally rotated. For the upper extremity, each of the (two sets of) four positions were performed with different arm positions (arms by the sides, arms crossed over the chest, arms 30o flexed and touching the medial end of the clavicle, arms 30o flexed with the hands holding a support). Three sets of surface topography were collected in the eight positions (n=24). The variability was assessed by calculating standard error of the measurement (SEm) and the coefficient of variation (CV). Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC±95%CI).

Results
No significant differences in the SEm were found between the three paired measurements for all standing positions (P>0.05). ICC values demonstrated excellent reliability for all measurements across the eight standing positions (range 0.879 to 1.00 [95% CI 0.813-1.00]).

Conclusion
Evaluating eight standing positions radiographically would be unethical as it would involve repeat radiation exposures. Using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system, provides an alternative and has shown that there was only a minimal, non-statistically significant, differences between the eight different standing positions.

Item Type: Article
Schools: Schools > School of Health Sciences
Journal or Publication Title: Radiography
Publisher: Elsevier
ISSN: 1078-8174
Related URLs:
Funders: Jordanian Government
Depositing User: P Hogg
Date Deposited: 14 Jun 2019 09:06
Last Modified: 12 Mar 2020 15:15
URI: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/51543

Actions (login required)

Edit record (repository staff only) Edit record (repository staff only)