Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 872–878 | Cite as

Reproducibility of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for individuals with sub-acute whiplash associated disorders

  • Mark A. WilliamsEmail author
  • Esther Williamson
  • Simon Gates
  • Matthew W. Cooke
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of the cervical range of motion device when measuring both active and passive range of motion in a group of individuals with sub-acute Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD).

Methods

Participants were recruited as part of a large multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial from UK emergency departments. Experienced research physiotherapists measured active and passive cervical spine movements in all directions. Both intra- and inter-observer reliability and agreement were assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement and limits of agreement methods.

Results

Different groups of 39 and 19 subjects were included in the intra and inter-observer studies, respectively. The CROM device demonstrated substantial intra- and inter-observer reliability and agreement for all the active and passive half-cycle movements (ICC range 0.82–0.99) with the exception of one (passive right lateral flexion for inter-observer; ICC 0.77).

Conclusions

The CROM device has proven to be a reproducible measurement method for a symptomatic WAD population using the measurement protocol described and can be used with confidence to differentiate individuals according to a single measurement.

Keywords

MeSH term ‘Reproducibility of results’ Cervical spine CROM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the participants of the study.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Maitland GD (2001) Maitland’s vertebral manipulation. Butterworth Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 20:1S–73S [erratum appears in Spine 1995 Nov 1;20(21):2372]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dall’Alba PT, Sterling MM, Treleaven JM, Edwards SL, Jull GA (2001) Cervical range of motion discriminates between asymptomatic persons and those with whiplash. Spine 26:2090–2094PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cagnie B, Cools A, De Loose V, Cambier D, Danneels L (2007) Reliability and normative database of the Zebris cervical range-of-motion system in healthy controls with preliminary validation in a group of patients with neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 30:450–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kasch H, Bach FW, Jensen TS (2001) Handicap after acute whiplash injury: a 1-year prospective study of risk factors. Neurology 56:1637–1643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartling L, Brison RJ, Ardern C, Pickett W (2001) Prognostic value of the quebec classification of whiplash-associated disorders. Spine 26:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: Normal kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan K (2000) Assessment of published reliability studies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurement tools. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 23:180–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Koning C, van den Heuvel S, Staal J, Smits-Engelsman B, Hendriks E (2008) Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 17:905–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams M, McCarthy C, Chorti A, Cooke M, Gates S (2010) A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of methods for measuring active and passive cervical range of motion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 33:138–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.12.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE (1995) Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man ther 1:36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tousignant M, de Bellefeuille L, O’Donoughue S, Grahovac S (2000) Criterion validity of the cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer for cervical flexion and extension. Spine 25:324–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tousignant M, Duclos E, Lafleche S, Mayer A, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Brosseau L, O’Sullivan JP (2002) Validity study for the cervical range of motion device used for lateral flexion in patients with neck pain. Spine 27:812–817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tousignant M, Smeesters C, Breton AM, Breton E, Corriveau H (2006) Criterion validity study of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for rotational range of motion on healthy adults. J Orthop Sports Physic Ther 36:242–248Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamb SE, Gates S, Underwood MR, Cooke MW, Ashby D, Szczepura A, Williams MA, Williamson EM, Withers EJ, Mt Isa S, Gumber A, Team MS (2007) Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): design of a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrout PE (1998) Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res 7:301–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A (1998) Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J, Solinger AB, Poncet JF, Lantz CA (1999) Meta-analysis of normative cervical motion. Spine 24:1571–1578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Assink N, Bergman GJ, Knoester B, Winters JC, Dijkstra PU, Postema K (2005) Interobserver reliability of neck-mobility measurement by means of the flock-of-birds electromagnetic tracking system. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 28:408–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Youdas JW, Carey JR, Garrett TR (1991) Reliability of measurements of cervical spine range of motion—comparison of three methods. Phys Ther 71:98–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peolsson A, Hednlund R, Ertzgaard S, Oberg B (2000) Intra- and inter-tester reliability and range of motion of the neck. Physiother Can Summer 52:233–242Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Love S, Gringmuth RH, Kazemi M, Cornacchia P, Schmolke M (1998) Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of cervical passive range of motion using the CROM and Cybex 320 EDI. J Can Chiropr Assoc 42:222–228Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J (1996) The interexaminer reliability of measuring passive cervical range of motion, revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 19:302–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dvir Z, Gal-Eshel N, Shamir B, Prushansky T, Pevzner E, Peretz C (2006) Cervical motion in patients with chronic disorders of the cervical spine: a reproducibility study. Spine 31:E394–E399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gelalis I, DeFrate L, Stafilas K, Pakos E, Kang J, Gilbertson L (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion: reliability of a computer assisted magnetic tracking device compared to inclinometer. Eur Spine J 18:276–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Williams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Esther Williamson
    • 1
  • Simon Gates
    • 1
  • Matthew W. Cooke
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Trials UnitWarwick Medical School, University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Health Sciences Research InstituteWarwick Medical School, University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations