Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlzyoud, K.
dc.contributor.authorHogg, P.
dc.contributor.authorSnaith, Beverly
dc.contributor.authorPreece, S.
dc.contributor.authorEngland, A.
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-08T13:28:58Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-10T13:44:54Z
dc.date.available2019-07-08T13:28:58Z
dc.date.available2019-07-10T13:44:54Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationAlzyoud K, Hogg P, Snaith B et al (2019) Video rasterstereography of the spine and pelvis in eight erect positions: A reliability study. Radiography. Accepted for Publication.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/17165
dc.descriptionYesen_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: 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 30° flexed and touching the medial end of the clavicle, arms 30° 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 0.879–1.00 [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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipKA is supported by the Hashemite University/ Jordan.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.06.002en_US
dc.rights© 2019 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.en_US
dc.subjectVideo rasterstereographyen_US
dc.subjectPelvis tilten_US
dc.subjectErect pelvis radiographen_US
dc.subjectPostureen_US
dc.titleVideo rasterstereography of the spine and pelvis in eight erect positions: A reliability studyen_US
dc.status.refereedYesen_US
dc.date.Accepted2019-06-06
dc.date.application2019-06-27
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.date.EndofEmbargo2020-06-28
dc.type.versionAccepted manuscripten_US
dc.description.publicnotesThe full-text of this article will be released for public view at the end of the publisher embargo on 28 June 2020.en_US
dc.date.updated2019-07-08T12:29:05Z
refterms.dateFOA2019-07-10T13:45:27Z


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
Alzyoudetal2019diersreliabilit ...
Size:
3.448Mb
Format:
Microsoft Word 2007
Description:
To keep suppressed
Thumbnail
Name:
Snaith_Radiography.pdf
Embargo:
2020-06-28
Size:
645.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record