Abstract
Introduction
In clinical practice, cervical proprioception is usually evaluated by calculating the cervical joint position error (JPE) with laser pointer devices (LPD) or cervical range-of-motion (CROM) instruments. As technology continues to improve, more and more advanced tools are used to evaluate cervical proprioception. The purpose of this study was to analyze the reliability and validity of the WitMotion sensor (WS) device in evaluating cervical proprioception, and to explore a cheaper, more convenient, and more practical testing tool.
Methods
Twenty-eight healthy participants (16 women, 12 men; age 25–66 years) were recruited and evaluated for cervical joint position error with a WS and LPD by two independent observers. All participants repositioned their head to the target position and the deviation of repositioning was calculated using these two instruments. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of the instrument were determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and the validity was analyzed by calculating the ICC and the Spearman’s correlation.
Results
The intra-rater reliability of the WS (ICCs = 0.682–0.774) was higher than that of the LPD (ICCs = 0.512–0.719) for measuring JPE of cervical flexion, right lateral flexion, and left rotation. However, the LPD (ICCs = 0.767–0.796) outperformed the WS (ICCs = 0.507–0.661) in cervical extension, left lateral flexion, and right rotation. For the inter-rater reliability, the ICC values obtained by the WS and the LPD were above 0.70 for all cervical movements except cervical extension and left lateral flexion (ICCs = 0.580–0.679). For the validity, the ICC values were moderate to good (ICCs > 0.614) for measuring JPE in all movements with the WS and the LPD.
Conclusions
Based on the high ICC values of reliability and validity, the novel device can be an alternative tool to evaluate cervical proprioception in clinical practice.
Trial Registration
This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100047228).
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
This novel assessment device may be cheaper and more accurate in evaluating cervical proprioception compared to the traditional assessment instrument. |
Investigations testing the reliability of the novel assessment device in cervical JPE measurement are scarce. |
What was learned from the study? |
In this study, based on good reliability and validity, we demonstrated that this novel assessment device can be a reliable substitute for the traditional assessment instrument in evaluating proprioception of the cervical spine in certain anatomic planes. |
Therefore, the novel assessment device could play a crucial part in building efficiency, improving accuracy, and saving money. |
Introduction
Impairment of cervical proprioception is one of the main problems in patients with cervical spondylosis. The cervical proprioceptive system plays a crucial role in controlling posture and maintaining balance [1, 2]. Prior studies have attempted to quantify proprioceptive dysfunction by different methods. Cervical joint position sense (JPS) reflects an individual's ability to recreate and perceive the previous predefined position or ranges of motion of a joint. Thus, the error a person makes when reproducing the predefined target is defined as the joint position error (JPE) [3]. Cervical JPE is one of the practical measures for evaluating cervical proprioception.
Head repositioning to neutral test was selected to quantify cervical proprioception [4]. In the study of head to neutral repositioning test (HRNT), the difference between the initially determined reference point position (neutral or target position) and the position produced when subjects try to match the target position is called JPE and the difference is converted into degrees [5]. Several testing tools, such as cervical range-of-motion device (CROM) [6, 7], single inclinometer [8, 9], goniometer [10], and mobile phone-based joint angle measurement [11] have been studied to measure cervical JPE. Given the well-known drawbacks of expense [12, 13], measurement invariance [14], and the inability of data storage and analysis [15, 16], more and more studies are sought to develop a more accurate and faster instrument for cervical JPE evaluation.
In this study, a novel measuring device, the WitMotion sensor (WS), was developed to assess the cervical JPE. Furthermore, the validity and intra- and inter-rater reliability of the WS in cervical JPE measurement were determined.
Methods
A cross-sectional study with single-group repeated measures was conducted to evaluate the reliability and the validity of the WS and the laser pointer device (LPD). The protocol was granted by the Committee of Ethics of Taizhou People’s Hospital (Code: KY 2022-153-01), and followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants for the use and publication of the images.
Participants
In order to have a minimal significant intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.60 (1-β = 0.80; α = 0.05), a minimum of 20 participants were needed. Considering possible dropouts from the study, a total of 28 asymptomatic participants (16 women, 12 men; age 25–66 years) were recruited. Participants included were: (1) aged over 18 years old; (2) without cervical spine problem in the last 3 months. The participants with cervical symptoms such as neck pain, stiffness or limitation of motion, confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, who scored above 10% in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) were excluded [17].
Randomization
The order of measuring participants in each session was randomized using GraphPad software. To avoid possible measurement bias, all measurements obtained are stored in a private Microsoft Excel file and all subjects are not allowed to communicate with each other during the trial.
Variables and Tools
Cervical JPE was assessed by two independent rehabilitation therapists with 5 years of experience using the WS and the LPD in three different planes (sagittal plane: flexion and extension; frontal plane: left and right lateral flexions; transversal plane: left and right rotations).
WitMotion Sensors (WS)
The WitMotion sensors (4 cm × 4 cm × 1.5 cm; weight < 20 g) are attached to the top of the LPD instrument and it integrates high-precision three-axis gyroscope, three-axis accelerometer, three-axis Euler Angle, three-axis magnetic field, high-performance microprocessor, advanced dynamic calculation and Kalman dynamic filtering algorithm. Besides, the WitMotion sensors transmit the data via Bluetooth 2.0 to the upper-computer software, which can record the data, display the range of motion (ROM) simultaneity, and calculate the angle difference between the starting and final positions.
Laser Pointer Device (LPD)
The LPD instrument is a device that attaches a laser pointer to the top of a light headpiece fixed to the head firmly. Also, considering its reliability and universality, the LPD instrument is used clinically widely, although it is not the gold standard to measure cervical JPE [18].
Neck Disability Index
The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is a self-administered questionnaire that is designed to investigate possible cervical discomfort in the subject’s life. Previous studies have reported that the NDI is validated and proved the higher the score, the more serious for the cervical disability [19].
Procedures
Before assessment, each participant was told the information about the experiment and they signed the informed consent form. Subsequently, the cervical JPE of the participant was separately assessed using the WS and the LPD after they completed the NDI scale.
Each participant was required to sit upright at a fixed distance of 90 cm to a target and the target was a white paper (60 × 60 cm) that was glued to the wall and can be adjusted according to the height of the participants. Next, the LPD that binds the WS was placed on the participants' heads (Fig. 1A). Meanwhile, all participants wore blindfolds to block visual interference and were strapped across the shoulders to the chair to reduce limb compensation. Then, the examiner asked the participant to move their head from the neutral position into approximately 50% of maximal cervical range of motion and then slowly return the head to the neutral position after holding for 3 s.
The initial and final position of each measurement was marked in the white paper and the distance between the two locations is recorded. Based on the values of the absolute distance, the cervical proprioception was quantified by calculating cervical JPE using the formula [20, 21].
For the sensor, the angle of the initial position and the final position is recorded and the trajectory of each direction is displayed on the upper computer (Fig. 1B).
All participants were measured three times consecutively, and a 1-min break was given between the two tests. After evaluation of rater A, rater B repeats the measurements in exactly the same manner. To determine the intra-rater reliability, rater A measured the JPE again in the same conditions 7 days later.
Statistical Methods
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 25.0). Reliability is analyzed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), two-way random and absolute agreement, and its 95% confidence interval. The single and averaged measurements are described as ICC[2,1] and ICC[2,2], according to the ICC model. In this study, we determine the averages of three consecutive measures of the rater A and which were used to calculate the ICC of the intra-rater reliability by comparing ICC before and after 7 days. For the ICC of inter-rater reliability, it is calculated by measuring the averages of three consecutive measures of each rater. According to previously published categories, the ICC was interpreted to the level: < 0.40 is poor agreement, 0.40–0.75 is moderate agreement, > 0.75 is good agreement, and ≥ 0.90 is excellent agreement [22]. Finally, the validity (the WS vs. the LPD) was determined by analyzing the ICC and the Spearman’s correlation between rater A and rater B. Based on the results of a study, the correlation size was considered as negligible (0.00–0.30), low (0.30–0.50), moderate (0.50–0.70), high (0.70–0.90), or very high (0.90–1) [23].
The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimum detectable change at the 90% confidence interval (MDC90) were used to assess measurement error for both reliability and validity. The following formula (1) was used to calculate the SEM and formula (2) was used to calculate the MDC90.
Bland–Altman is a visual display method plotting a scatter diagram to visualize the deviation of each pair of values of each subject. The limits of agreement (LoA) of the two measurement results were calculated using mean differences ± (standard deviation × 1.96).
Results
Intra-rater Reliability
Moderate-to-good ICC for all measurements (ICCs > 0.507) made by rater A are shown in Table 1. For the LPD instrument, moderate intra-rater reliability was observed in cervical flexion, left rotation, and right-lateral flexion (ICCs = 0.512–0.719), while good intra-rater reliability was represented in extension, left lateral flexion, and right rotation (ICCs = 0.767–0.796). Meanwhile, the WS showed moderate intra-rater reliability results in extension, right rotation, left-lateral flexion, and right-lateral flexion (ICCs = 0.507–0.682) and good intra-rater reliability was represented in flexion and left rotation (ICCs = 0.757–0.774). Regarding the SEM analysis, the rater A reported a SEM ≤ 1.644 and ≤ 1.590 with the LPD instrument and the WS, respectively. Also, an MDC90 range of 1.925–3.835 for the LPD instrument and 1.768–3.709 for the WS are presented in Table 1.
Inter-rater Reliability
For the inter-rater reliability analyses, we found it was good to excellent for the LPD in cervical flexion, right-lateral flexion, and left-rotation and right-rotation (ICCs = 0.859–0.950), but results were moderate in cervical extension, left-lateral flexion (ICCs = 0.712–0.727). Reliability for the WS was good to excellent in cervical flexion, right-lateral flexion left-rotation and right-rotation (ICCs = 0.770–0.920), but moderate in cervical extension and left-lateral flexion (ICCs = 0.580–0.679). Meanwhile, the values of SEMs were ≤ 2.664 and ≤ 1.538 for the LPD instrument and the WS, respectively. In regard to the MDC90, it was measured between 1.168 and 2.293 for the LPD instrument and between 1.826 and 3.589 for the WS (Table 2).
Criterion Validity
Validity was assessed by Spearman’s correlation and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) in combination with assessment of systematic bias. We observed good-to-excellent validity for the movements of cervical flexion (ICC = 0.869; r = 0.880, p < 0.001), cervical extension (ICC = 0.786; r = 0.806, p < 0.001) and right-rotation (ICC = 0.860; r = 0.876, p < 0.001). Moderate validity was observed in cervical left-rotation (ICC = 0.622; r = 0.632, p < 0.001) and left-lateral flexion (ICC = 0.614; r = 0.668, p < 0.001) and right-lateral flexion (ICC = 0.709; r = 0.724, p < 0.001). Regarding the SEM analysis, it is reported ≤ 1.947 for rater A and the MDC90 range from 2.120 to 4.544. The complete results are presented in Table 3.
Furthermore, the Bland–Altman plots and the 95% LoA (Figs. 2, 3, and 4) show strong consistency between the two instruments according to the fact that most of the points were distributed between the upper and lower agreements. Especially, the most consistency was observed by the comparison between the LPD and WS when assessing cervical rotation.
Discussion
In clinical practice, the patients with neck pain are usually accompanied by impaired proprioception [18]. In addition, the treatment with targeted rehabilitation exercises can be determined only when cervical proprioception is evaluated accurately. Therefore, the assessment of cervical proprioception as an objective and repeatable assessment method was widely used to examine the degree of cervical impairment and effectives of cervical rehabilitation exercise. In a randomized controlled trial, Jull et al. [24] assessed JPE in patients with chronic neck pain. Then, it revealed that the proprioceptive training group had a greater improvement in reducing cervical JPE and neck pain compared to the control group. In another cross-sectional study, Zeng et al. [25] explored a simple, objective, and more reliable assessment method to quantify cervical dysfunction of patients with cervical spondylosis myelopathy (CSM). It demonstrated that the analysis of dynamic cervical spine motion (ADCM) could provide cervical dynamic parameters for evaluating the severity of CSM patients roundly. In the present study, we examined the reliability and validity of the WS for evaluating cervical proprioception in three different planes. Furthermore, the study focused on measurements of the cervical JPE instead of the cervical ROM, as it was directly related to cervical proprioception in the medical and rehabilitation fields. Moreover, the data of cervical movement could be documented and stored in real time, which makes the WS more meaningful in terms of clinical applications. From the results of the study, we demonstrated that the novel device can be an alternative tool for evaluating cervical proprioception in clinical practice.
Reliability is usually analyzed before a novel instrument or research method is applied in practice [26]. According to previous literature, ICC scores ranging from 0.75 to 0.90 are labeled as good, and those above 0.90 are described as excellent [22]. For the intra-rater reliability, several studies have analyzed it in assessing CROM with inertial sensors. In a study by Gobbo et al. [27], the intra-rater reliability of an integrated inertial sensor (IIS) had moderate-to-good agreement in older adults (OA) and younger adults (YA), which is consistent with this study. It should be noted that our study aimed to measure cervical JPE rather than cervical ROM, because cervical JPE is directly related to cervical proprioception. Given the LPD, the intra-rater reliability of cervical JPE was moderate to good, which seemed to be consistent with the results of the study by Gonçalves et al. The difference was that Gonçalves et al. assessed the reliability, measurement error, discriminative validity, and convergent validity of four proprioceptive tests in individuals with chronic idiopathic neck pain and asymptomatic individuals [28].
With respect to the SEM and MDC, both the LPD and the WS showed low values of SEM and MDC in our study, which means a greater accuracy of absolute reliability. In this study, a 1-week second-measurement time was chosen to avoid a flashback of the participants' memory and reduce external effects. Thus, the WS can be considered as a substitute for evaluating cervical proprioception based on the high intra-rater reliability and low values of SEM and MDC simultaneously.
In relation to inter-rater reliability, prior studies have also analyzed it in using inertial sensors to assess cervical CROM and the results obtained was moderate to excellent (ICCs > 0.75) [27, 29]. A study by Anoro et al. [30] provided the value of MDC90 and SEM, which is beneficial to analyze the effect of measurement error on research results. Similarly, the results of inter-rater reliability for the WS in this study is closer to the results of prior studies although the cervical JPE was evaluated instead of cervical ROM (ICCs = 0.518–0.920; 95% CI 0.176–0.962). Furthermore, the low values of SEM and MDC presented in Table 2 suggest that the WS can evaluate cervical JPE and also detect the changes from actual cervical JPE because of the therapeutic interventions.
Based on the results of this study, we can find the level of inter-rater reliability of the LPD is similar to that of the WS, except in right lateral flexion, for which the LPD showed excellent reliability, otherwise it is moderate to the WS.
To our knowledge, there were no studies analyzing the validation of sensors for measuring cervical JPE. Therefore, we analyzed it in this study and it was presented moderate to good (ICCs = 0.513–0.869) when we compared the results obtained by the WS with those recorded by the LPD. It should be mentioned that the difference in the WS and the LPD varied from 1.08° to 6.39° of cervical movement for all directions based on the 95% LoA. The lower values of the validity observed in the movements of lateral flexion (ICCs < 0.60) may partly be explained by the fact that it was sensible to electromagnetic fields. This may lessen the accuracy of measurement.
The validity of sensors for measuring cervical ROM have been reported in previous studies. For instance, in order to measure more accurate CROM, Raya et al. [29] used two hardware sensors to reduce back compensation and compared the values measured by an optoelectronic system, which is considered the gold standard for cervical ROM [31]. Also, Ignacio et al. [32] analyzed the validity of inertial sensors and the cervical ROM instrument for measuring active CROM in patients with chronic primary headache. The ICCs were moderate for both raters (ICCs > 0.70), which were consistent with the results of this study.
In consideration of the limitations of this study, first, the validity for measuring cervical JPE by WS was not compared with that of the cervical CROM instrument. However, this study aimed to compare the reliability and the validity of this novel instrument with that of the LPD. Also, there are few studies on the validity of sensors. Second, this study was limited by the absence of the participants with neck pain, therefore further studies in subjects with neck pain would be more convincing in assessing the reliability and validity of cervical JPE by the WS instrument. Third, this study did not explore the effect of sensor placement on the evaluation results. Further studies can determine whether the measurement results of sensors placed on the top of the head are consistent with those of sensors placed on the forehead.
Conclusions
The results of this investigation showed that the intra- and inter-reliability and validity was moderate to excellent. Therefore, based on our results plus its inexpensiveness and accuracy, the WS can be a reliable substitute for the LPD to evaluate proprioception of the cervical spine in certain anatomic planes.
References
Humphreys BK. Cervical outcome measures: testing for postural stability and balance. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(7):540–6.
Mergner T, Nasios G, Maurer C, Becker W. Visual object localisation in space. Interaction of retinal, eye position, vestibular and neck proprioceptive information. Exp Brain Res. 2001;141(1):33–51.
de Vries J, Ischebeck BK, Voogt LP, van der Geest JN, Janssen M, Frens MA, et al. Joint position sense error in people with neck pain: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2015;20(6):736–44.
de Zoete RMJ, Osmotherly PG, Rivett DA, Snodgrass SJ. Seven cervical sensorimotor control tests measure different skills in individuals with chronic idiopathic neck pain. Braz J Phys Ther. 2020;24(1):69–78.
Alahmari KA, Reddy RS, Silvian PS, Ahmad I, Kakaraparthi VN, Alam MM. Association of age on cervical joint position error. J Adv Res. 2017;8(3):201–7.
Rheault W, Albright B, Beyers C, Franta M, Johnson A, Skowronek M, et al. Intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1992;15(3):147–50.
Fletcher JP, Bandy WD. Intrarater reliability of CROM measurement of cervical spine active range of motion in persons with and without neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(10):640–5.
Mayer T, Brady S, Bovasso E, Pope P, Gatchel RJ. Noninvasive measurement of cervical tri-planar motion in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(15):2191–5.
Tousignant M, Boucher N, Bourbonnais J, Gravelle T, Quesnel M, Brosseau L. Intratester and intertester reliability of the Cybex electronic digital inclinometer (EDI-320) for measurement of active neck flexion and extension in healthy subjects. Man Ther. 2001;6(4):235–41.
Prushansky T, Dvir Z. Cervical motion testing: methodology and clinical implications. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(7):503–8.
Mourcou Q, Fleury A, Diot B, Franco C, Vuillerme N. Mobile phone-based joint angle measurement for functional assessment and rehabilitation of proprioception. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015: 328142.
Williams MA, Williamson E, Gates S, Cooke MW. Reproducibility of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for individuals with sub-acute whiplash associated disorders. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(5):872–8.
Audette I, Dumas JP, Côté JN, De Serres SJ. Validity and between-day reliability of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(5):318–23.
Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man Ther. 1995;1(1):36–42.
Ghorbani F, Kamyab M, Azadinia F. Smartphone applications as a suitable alternative to CROM device and inclinometers in assessing the cervical range of motion in patients with nonspecific neck pain. J Chiropr Med. 2020;19(1):38–48.
Guidetti L, Placentino U, Baldari C. Reliability and criterion validity of the smartphone inclinometer application to quantify cervical spine mobility. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(10):E1359–66.
Vernon H. The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991–2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(7):491–502.
Stanton TR, Leake HB, Chalmers KJ, Moseley GL. Evidence of impaired proprioception in chronic, idiopathic neck pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2016;96(6):876–87.
Andrade Ortega JA, Delgado Martínez AD, Almécija RR. Validation of the Spanish version of the Neck Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(4):E114–8.
Chen X, Treleaven J. The effect of neck torsion on joint position error in subjects with chronic neck pain. Man Ther. 2013;18(6):562–7.
Roren A, Mayoux-Benhamou MA, Fayad F, Poiraudeau S, Lantz D, Revel M. Comparison of visual and ultrasound-based techniques to measure head repositioning in healthy and neck-pain subjects. Man Ther. 2009;14(3):270–7.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71.
Jull G, Falla D, Treleaven J, Hodges P, Vicenzino B. Retraining cervical joint position sense: the effect of two exercise regimes. J Orthop Res. 2007;25(3):404–12.
Xu Z, Zhou J, Wang J, Wang H, Wu X, Chen H. Analysis of time-space variations during dynamic cervical spine motion in cervical spondylosis myelopathy patients. Spine J. 2022;22(11):1857–65.
Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Boutin N, Dion AM, Vallée CA. Reliability and criterion validity of two applications of the iPhone™ to measure cervical range of motion in healthy participants. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10(1):69.
Gobbo S, Vendramin B, Roma E, Duregon F, Bocalini DS, Rica RL, et al. Reliability of an integrated inertial sensor for the continuous measurement of active cervical range of motion in a group of younger and elderly individuals. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020;5(3):58.
Gonçalves C, Silva AG. Reliability, measurement error and construct validity of four proprioceptive tests in patients with chronic idiopathic neck pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;43:103–9.
Raya R, Garcia-Carmona R, Sanchez C, Urendes E, Ramirez O, Martin A, et al. An inexpensive and easy to use cervical range of motion measurement solution using inertial sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18(8):2582.
Anoro-Hervera A, Lafuente-Pérez A, Navarro-Fernández G, Muñoz-García D, Lerma-Lara S, Beltran-Alacreu H. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of cervical active range of movement in young asymptomatic adults using inertial sensors. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16(12):1071–7.
Wibault J, Vaillant J, Vuillerme N, Dedering Å, Peolsson A. Using the cervical range of motion (CROM) device to assess head repositioning accuracy in individuals with cervical radiculopathy in comparison to neck- healthy individuals. Man Ther. 2013;18(5):403–9.
Elizagaray-García I, Gil-Martínez A, Navarro-Fernández G, Navarro-Moreno AR, Sánchez-de-Toro-Hernández J, Díaz-de-Terán J, et al. Inter, intra-examiner reliability and validity of inertial sensors to measure the active cervical range of motion in patients with primary headache. Excli j. 2021;20:879–93.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Li Xingbin and Fu Shengyu for their assistance in the study design. We also gratefully thank all participants of the study.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by the authors.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Meng Zhang, Xiao-Yan Chen, and Ai-Bing Huang. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Meng Zhang and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Disclosures
Meng Zhang, Xiao-yan Chen, Sheng-yu Fu, Dong-feng Li, Gao-nian Zhao, and Ai-bing Huang declare that they have no competing interests.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The protocol was granted by the Committee of Ethics of Taizhou People’s Hospital (Code: KY 2022–153-01), and followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100047228). Written informed consent was obtained from the participants for the use and publication of the images.
Data Availability
In order to protect privacy and respect confidentiality, no part of the raw data has been made available in any public repository. The original trial photographs and clinic records were retained among the medical records of our institution per the normal procedure. Partial data concerning the case are presented in the manuscript. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, M., Chen, Xy., Fu, Sy. et al. Reliability and Validity of A Novel Device for Evaluating the Cervical Proprioception. Pain Ther 12, 671–682 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-023-00487-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-023-00487-0