Cited by 228Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationScoliosis diagnosis and treatment

Assessment of forward head posture in females: Observational and photogrammetry methods

Salahzadeh, Zahra, Maroufi, Nader, Ahmadi, Amir, Behtash, Hamid, Razmjoo, Arash, Gohari, Mahmoud, Parnianpour, Mohamad·2014·Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are different methods to assess forward head posture (FHP) but the accuracy and discrimination ability of these methods are not clear. OBJECTIVES: Here, we want to compare three postural angles for FHP assessment and also study the discrimination accuracy of three photogrammetric methods to differentiate groups categorized based on observational method. METHOD: All Seventy-eight healthy female participants (23 ± 2.63 years), were classified into three groups: moderate-severe FHP, slight FHP and non FHP based on observational postural assessment rules. Applying three photogrammetric methods - craniovertebral angle, head title angle and head position angle - to measure FHP objectively. RESULTS: One - way ANOVA test showed a significant difference in three categorized group's craniovertebral angle (P< 0.05, F=83.07). There was no dramatic difference in head tilt angle and head position angle methods in three groups. According to Linear Discriminate Analysis (LDA) results, the canonical discriminant function (Wilks'Lambda) was 0.311 for craniovertebral angle with 79.5% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that, craniovertebral angle method may discriminate the females with moderate-severe and non FHP more accurate than head position angle and head tilt angle. The photogrammetric method had excellent inter and intra rater reliability to assess the head and cervical posture.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/bmr-130426

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Salahzadeh, Z., Maroufi, N., Ahmadi, A., Behtash, H., Razmjoo, A., Gohari, M., & Parnianpour, M.
Affiliations
  • Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Sharif University of Technology (IR)
Corresponding author
Maroufi, Nader
Venue
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
131-139
ISSN
  • 1053-8127 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-6324
OpenAlex
W1592738453
Cited by
228
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
forward head posture, craniovertebral angle, head tilt angle, photogrammetry, cervical posture, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, female participants
MeSH terms
Adult, Cervical Vertebrae, Female, Head, Humans, Neck, Photogrammetry, Physical Examination, Posture, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

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