Index to Chiropractic Literature
Index to Chiropractic Literature
My ICL     Sign In
Saturday, July 31, 2021
Index to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic Literature
Share:


For best results switch to Advanced Search.
Article Detail
Return to Search Results
ID 3600
  Title A new technique of tissue stiffness (compliance) assessment: Its reliability, accuracy and comparison with an existing method
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8903696
Journal J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 Jan;19(1):13-18
Author(s)
Subject(s)
Peer Review Yes
Publication Type Article
Abstract/Notes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and accuracy of a new method of tissue stiffness (TS) assessment, automated stiffness assessment (ASA), and compare these findings with previously published results of manual stiffness assessment (MSA).

DESIGN: Descriptive study.

SETTING: Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary.

INTERVENTION: ASA was used to collect stiffness measurements from three foam surfaces of different stiffness characteristics and two control surfaces. Control surface one (CS1) was rigid and could not be displaced; control surface two (CS2) was rigid but could be displaced. The three foam surfaces and CS1 had been previously tested using MSA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reliability and accuracy were assessed for each separate electronic component by root mean square analysis (RMS) and linear regression/calibration curves, respectively. The reliability of ASA (all electronic components working in concert) was determined by computing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); the accuracy of ASA was assessed by studying relative deformations of the control surfaces.

RESULTS: Each electronic component used in ASA was found to have a calculated RMS of less than 0.03% of the mean, whereas the R2-value for any of these separate components was never lower than 0.99. For ASA, the median ICC for all surfaces tested was 0.99. The mean relative deformation collected from CS1 was 0.34 +/- mm at 44.0 N of input force whereas the mean relative deformation collected from CS2 was 0.008 +/- 0.013 mm. The median ICC for MSA found in a previous investigation was 0.005 and the mean displacement recorded from the control surface with MSA was 1.28 +/- 0.57 mm at 49.10 N.

CONCLUSION: ASA seems to be extremely reliable and accurate. When ASA and MSA were used to assess identical test surfaces, the results of MSA were poor when compared with those obtained by ASA; we therefore suggest that conclusions reached in prior research employing MSA should be considered with caution. It is our recommendation that remotely controlled, electronic signal gathering procedures such as ASA be the method of choice when assessing TS.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; full text is available by subscription. Click on the above link and select a publisher from PubMed's LinkOut feature.


 

   Text (Citation) Tagged (Export) Excel
 
Email To
Subject
 Message
Format
HTML Text     Excel



To use this feature you must register a personal account in My ICL. Registration is free! In My ICL you can save your ICL searches in My Searches, and you can save search results in My Collections. Be sure to use the Held Citations feature to collect citations from an entire search session. Read more search tips.

Sign Into Existing My ICL Account    |    Register A New My ICL Account
Search Tips
  • Enclose phrases in "quotation marks".  Examples: "low back pain", "evidence-based"
  • Retrieve all forms of a word with an asterisk*, also called a wildcard or truncation.  Example: chiropract* retrieves chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractors
  • Register an account in My ICL to save search histories (My Searches) and collections of records (My Collections)
Advanced Search Tips