Manual Therapy, Posturology & Rehabilitation Journal
http://mtprehabjournal.com/article/doi/10.17784/mtprehabjournal.2018.16.538
Manual Therapy, Posturology & Rehabilitation Journal
Research Article

Analysis of agreement of assessment tools of range of motion in the elderly

Deise Aparecida de Almeida Pires-Oliveira, Rosemari Queiroz Freitas, Abdallah Achour Júnior, Laís Campos de Oliveira, Raphael Gonçalves de Oliveira, Iranse Oliveira-Silva, Viviane Soares, Rodrigo Franco de Oliveira

Downloads: 0
Views: 21

Abstract

Background: Considering the growth of the elderly population and the typical declines in the aging process on physical capacities such as flexibility, it is necessary to understand how different assessment instruments are able to measure joint range of motion. Objective: To verify the agreement between the goniometer and fleximeter instruments in the evaluation of the range of motion of the hip, knee and ankle joints of elderly women. Methods: The study evaluated a total of 138 elderly women, mean age of 70 years (± 5.49). The goniometer and the fleximeter were used to verify the range of motion of the hip flexion, knee flexion and ankle dorsi- and plantar‐flexion. For the analysis were used the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot, with confidence intervals of 95%. Results: The ICC values showed excellent agreement between the instruments, while the Bland-Altman plots presented a low risk of bias for all the regions evaluated (hip flexion: ICC= 0.99, bias= 1.19; knee flexion: ICC= 0.99, bias= -0.16; ankle dorsiflexion: ICC= 0.91, bias= -0.60; ankle plantar-flexion: ICC= 0.96; bias= -0.81). Conclusion: The results showed an excellent agreement between the data provided by the goniometer and fleximeter instruments on the evaluation of the range of motion of the hip flexion, knee flexion and ankle dorsi- and plantar-flexion, indicating that both provide similar results in the elderly.

Keywords

Joint; Range of Motion; Assessment; Elderly.

References

1. Figueiredo CF. Assis MG. Silva SLA. Dias RC. Mancini MC. Functional and cognitive changes in community-dwelling elderly: Longitudinal study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17(3):297-306.

2. Kim JY. Park SD. Song HS. The effects of a complex exercise program with the visual block on the walking and balance abilities of elderly people. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(12):2007-9.

3. Osugi T. Iwamoto J. Yamazaki M. Takakuwa M. Effect of a combination of whole body vibration exercise and squat training on body balance. muscle power. and walking ability in the elderly. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014;10(1):131-8.

4. Brady AO. Straight CR. Evans EM. Body composition. muscle capacity. and physical function in older adults: an integrated conceptual model. J Aging Phys Act. 2014;22(3):441-52.

5. Cristopoliski F. Sarraf TA. Dezan VH. Provensi CLG. Rodacki ALF. Efeito transiente de exercícios de flexibilidade na articulação do quadril sobre a marcha de idosas. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2008;14(2):139-44.

6. Carneiro NH. Ribeiro AS. Nascimento MA. Gobbo LA. Schoenfeld BJ. Achour Júnior A. et al. Effects of different resistance training frequencies on flexibility in older women. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10(1):531-8.

7. Yijun H. Liu X. Improvement of balance control ability and flexibility in the elderly Tai Chi Chuan (TCC) practitioners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;60(2):233-8.

8. Stathokostas L. McDonald MW. Little RMD. Paterson DH. Flexibility of older adults aged 55–86 years and the influence of physical activity. J Aging Res. 2013;2013:1-8.

9. Rizzi PRS. Leal RM. Vendrusculo AP. Efeito da hidrocinesioterapia na força muscular e na flexibilidade em idosas sedentárias. Fisioter Mov. 2010;23(4):535-43.

10. Albino ILR. Freitas ClR. Teixeira AR. Gonçalves AK. Santos AMPV. Bós AJG. Influência do treinamento de força muscular e de flexibilidade articular sobre o equilíbrio corporal em idosas. Rev Bras Geriatr Gerontol. 2012;15(1):17-25.

11. Fragala MS. Kenny AM. Kuchel GA. Muscle quality in aging: a multidimensional approach to muscle functioning with applications for treatment. Sports Med. 2015;45(5):641-58.

12. Burgin LV. Edelsten L. Aspden RM. The mechanical and material properties of elderly human articular cartilage subject to impact and slow loading. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36(2):226-32.

13. Richard F. Loeser MD. The Effects of Aging on the Development of Osteoarthritis. HSS J. 2012;8(1):18-9.

14. Cooperstein R. Clark TA. Whitney T. Agreement of upright and supine measurements of active cervical rotation. J Acad Chirop Orthop. 2014;11(4):1-12.

15. Ganzalez GZ. Costa LCM. Garcia AN. Shiwa SR. Amorim CF. Costa LOP. Reprodutibilidade e validade do construto de três instrumentos não invasivos para a avaliação da amplitude de movimento da coluna em pacientes com dor lombar. Fisioter Pesq. 2014;21(4):365-71.

16. Santos CM. Ferreira G. Malacco PL. Sabino GS. Moraes GFS. Felício DC. Confiabilidade intra e interexaminadores e erro da medição no uso do goniômetro e inclinômetro digital. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2012;18(1):38-41.

17. Florêncio LL. Pereira PA. Silva ERT. Pegoretti KS. Gonçalves MC. BevilaquaGrossi D. Concordância e confiabilidade de dois métodos não-invasivos para a avaliação da amplitude de movimento cervical em adultos jovens. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010;14(2):175-81.

18. Gouveia VH. Araújo AGF. Maciel SS. Ferreira JJA. Santos HH. Confiabilidade das medidas inter e intra-avaliadores com goniômetro universal e flexímetro. Fisioter Pesq. 2014;21(3):229-35.

19. Santos JDM. Oliveira MA. Silveira NJF. Carvalho SS. Oliveira AG. Confiabilidade inter e intra examinadores nas mensurações angulares por fotogrametria digital e goniometria. Fisioter Mov. 2011;24(3):389-400.

20. Venturini CAA. Aguilar BP. Giacomelli B. Confiabilidade de dois métodos de avaliação da amplitude de movimento ativa de dorsiflexão do tornozelo em indivíduos saudáveis. Acta Fisiát. 2006;13(1):39-43.

21. Chaves TC. Nagamine HM. Belli JFC. Hannai MCT. Bevilaqua-Grossi D. Oliveira AS. Confiabilidade da fleximetria e goniometria na avaliação da amplitude de movimento cervical em crianças. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2008;12(4):283-9.

22. Williams MA. McCarthy CJ. Chorti A. Cooke MW. Gates S. A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of methods for measuring active and passive cervical range of motion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33(2):138-55.

23. Hughes MA. Duncan PW. Rose DK. Chandler JM. Studenski SA. The relations hip of postural sway to sensori motor function. functional performance. and disability in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(1):567-72.

24. Achour Júnior A. Manual de Instruções - Fleximeter - avaliando a flexibilidade. Instituto Code de Pesquisas. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Midiograf; 1997.

25. Barbosa MM. Filgueira VLS. Santana LA. Estudo comparativo entre o goniômetro universal e o flexímetro Sanny na mensuração da flexão passiva da articulação do cotovelo. Fisioter Bras. 2009;10(3):171-5.

26. Batista CAB. Meira MACV. Santana LA. Estudo comparativo entre as medidas da Goniometria e da Fleximetria passiva na articulação do joelho. Fisioter Bras. 2010;11(2):84-7.

27. Achour Junior A. Nascimento MA. Franco R. Silva VP. Martins VF. Guariglia DA. Comparação e concordância de instrumentos de avaliação da amplitude de movimento da coluna cervical de homens universitários. Rev Educ Fis. 2013;24(4):609-16.

5c01673f0e8825de34cbcaa7 mtprehab Articles
Links & Downloads

Man. Ther., Posturology Rehabil. J.

Share this page
Page Sections