Cited by 61Cervical and Thoracic MyelopathyMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationInertial Sensor and Navigation

A wearable inertial system to assess the cervical spine mobility: Comparison with an optoelectronic-based motion capture evaluation

Open access
Duc, C., Salvia, P., Lubansu, A., Feipel, V., Aminian, K.·2014·Medical Engineering & Physics

Abstract

In clinical settings, the cervical range of motion (ROM) is commonly used to assess cervical spine function. This study aimed at assessing cervical spine mobility based on head and thorax kinematics measured with a wearable inertial system (WS). Sequences of imposed active head movements (lateral bending, axial rotation and flexion-extension) were recorded in ten controls and 13 patients who had undergone an arthrodesis. Orientation of the head relative to the thorax was computed in terms of 3D helical angles and compared with the values obtained using an optoelectronic reference system (RS). Movement patterns from WS and RS showed excellent concurrent validity (CMC up to 1.00), but presented slight differences of bias (mean bias<2.5°) and dispersion (mean dispersion<4.2°). ROM obtained using WS also showed some differences compared to RS (mean difference<5.7°), within the range of those reported in literature. WS enabled the observation of the same significant differences between controls and patients as RS. Moreover, ROM from WS presented good test-retest repeatability (ICC between 0.63 and 0.99 and SEM<6.2°). In conclusion, WS can provide angles and ROM comparable to those obtained with RS and relevant for the cervical assessment after treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.09.002

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duc, C., Salvia, P., Lubansu, A., Feipel, V., & Aminian, K.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
  • Duc, C.
  • Aminian, K.
Venue
Medical Engineering & Physics
Published
2013-09-25
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
49-56
ISSN
  • 1350-4533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-4030
OpenAlex
W1982492619
Cited by
61
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Engineering & Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Interinstitutional Centre of Translational Biomechanics
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
Keywords
wearable inertial sensors, cervical spine mobility, cervical range of motion, cervical arthrodesis, head kinematics, helical angle, optical motion capture, concurrent validity, test-retest repeatability, lateral bending, axial rotation, flexion-extension
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Arthrodesis, Cervical Vertebrae, Humans, Middle Aged, Movement, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Range of Motion, Articular, Optical Devices, Electrical Equipment and Supplies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review