The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability and validity of cervical position measurements in individuals with and without chronic neck pain
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: The cervical range of motion device (CROM) has been shown to provide reliable forward head position (FHP) measurement when the upper cervical angle (UCA) is controlled. However, measurement without UCA standardization is reflective of habitual patterns. Criterion validity has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to establish: (1) criterion validity of CROM FHP and UCA compared to Optotrak data, (2) relative reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC95) in patients with and without cervical pain, and (3) to compare UCA and FHP in patients with and without pain in habitual postures. METHODS: (1) Within-subjects single session concurrent criterion validity design. Simultaneous CROM and OP measurement was conducted in habitual sitting posture in 16 healthy young adults. (2) Reliability and MDC95 of UCA and FHP were calculated from three trials. (3) Values for adults over 35 years with cervical pain and age-matched healthy controls were compared. RESULTS: (1) Forward head position distances were moderately correlated and UCA angles were highly correlated. The mean (standard deviation) differences can be expected to vary between 1·48 cm (1·74) for FHP and -1·7 (2·46)° for UCA. (2) Reliability for CROM FHP measurements were good to excellent (no pain) and moderate (pain). Cervical range of motion FHP MDC95 was moderately low (no pain), and moderate (pain). Reliability for CROM UCA measurements was excellent and MDC95 low for both groups. There was no difference in FHP distances between the pain and no pain groups, UCA was significantly more extended in the pain group (P<0·05). DISCUSSION: Cervical range of motion FHP measurements were only moderately correlated with Optotrak data, and limits of agreement (LOA) and MDC95 were relatively large. There was also no difference in CROM FHP distance between older symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Cervical range of motion FHP measurement is therefore not recommended as a clinical outcome measure. Cervical range of motion UCA measurements showed good criterion validity, excellent test-retest reliability, and achievable MDC95 in asymptomatic and symptomatic participants. Differences of more than 6° are required to exceed error. Cervical range of motion UCA shows promise as a useful reliable and valid measurement, particularly as patients with cervical pain exhibited significantly more extended angles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The pooled mean difference was 0.26 (95% CI = -1.36,1.89), which showed no statistically significant difference in FHP by using the CROM device [34,37].”
From The Relationship Between Forward Head Posture and Neck Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice,
(2002) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(02)00362-4 · Cited by 9,494
Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: Normal kinematics
Bogduk, N., & Mercer, S. R. (2000) · Clinical Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00034-6 · Cited by 659
The relationship between head posture and severity and disability of patients with neck pain
Yip, C. H. T., Chiu, T. T. W., & Poon, A. T. K. (2007) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2006.11.002 · Cited by 513
A field comparison of neck and shoulder postures in symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers
Szeto, G. P. Y., Straker, L. M., & Raine, S. (2002) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(01)00043-6 · Cited by 436
Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Device
Audette, I., Dumas, J.-P., Côté, J. N., & Serres, S. J. D. (2010) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3180 · Cited by 400
Effect of Neck Exercise on Sitting Posture in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain
Falla, D., Jull, G. A., Russell, T. G., Vicenzino, B., & Hodges, P. W. (2007) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20060009 · Cited by 393
Fletcher, J. P., & Bandy, W. D. (2008) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.2680 · Cited by 304
The influence of different sitting postures on head/neck posture and muscle activity
Cañeiro, J. P., O’Sullivan, P., Burnett, A., Barach, A., O'Neil, D. G., Tveit, Ø., & Olafsdottir, K. (2009) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2009.06.002 · Cited by 292
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Gadotti I Armijo-Olivo S Silveira A Magee D. Intra and inter-rater reliability of the craniocervical posture – photogrammetry vs visual assessment. World Conference of Physiotherapy; Amsterdam Netherlands; 2011.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Relationship Between Forward Head Posture and Neck Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mahmoud, N. F., Hassan, K. A., Abdelmajeed, S. F., Moustafa, I. M., & Silva, A. G. (2019) · Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12178-019-09594-y · Cited by 360
Dunleavy, K., Kava, K., Goldberg, A., Malek, M. H., Talley, S. A., Lehr, V. T., & Hildreth, J. (2015) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.06.002 · Cited by 50
Self-citationLemeunier, N., Jeoun, E. B., Suri, M. F. K., Tuff, T., Shearer, H. M., Mior, S. A., Wong, J. J., da Silva-Oolup, S., Torres, P., D’Silva, C., et al. (2018) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2018.09.013 · Cited by 50
Gallego‐Izquierdo, T., Arroba-Díaz, E., García-Ascoz, G., Val-Cano, M. D. A., Pecos‐Martín, D., & Cano‐de‐la‐Cuerda, R. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17186521 · Cited by 42
Does forward head posture change subacromial space in active or passive arm elevation?
Dehqan, B., Delkhoush, C. T., Mirmohammadkhani, M., & Ehsani, F. (2020) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1080/10669817.2020.1854010 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunleavy, K., Neil, J., Tallon, A., & Adamo, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
- United States Navy (US)
- Mount Sinai Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dunleavy, Kim
- Venue
- Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-06-25
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 188-196
- ISSN
- 1066-9817 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-6186
- PMC
- PMC4727731
- OpenAlex
- W2022761730
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
- Keywords
- chronic neck pain, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, minimal detectable change, measurement error, outcome measures, older adults, limits of agreement, postural stability, postural sway
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
