Loading…
Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults
Background and Purpose Our aim is to estimate inter‐observer reliability, test–retest reliability, anthropometric and biomechanical adequacy and minimal detectable change when measuring the length of single‐point adjustable canes in community‐dwelling older adults. Methods There are 112 participants...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy 2017-01, Vol.22 (1), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703 |
| container_end_page | n/a |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Camara, Camila Thais Pinto Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira Lima, Waléria Paixão Lima, Camila Astolphi Amorim, César Ferreira Perracini, Monica Rodrigues |
| description | Background and Purpose
Our aim is to estimate inter‐observer reliability, test–retest reliability, anthropometric and biomechanical adequacy and minimal detectable change when measuring the length of single‐point adjustable canes in community‐dwelling older adults.
Methods
There are 112 participants in the study. They are men and women, aged 60 years and over, who were attending an outpatient community health centre. An exploratory study design was used. Participants underwent two assessments within the same day by two independent observers and by the same observer at an interval of 15–45 days. Two measures were used to establish the length of a single‐point adjustable cane: the distance from the distal wrist crease to the floor (WF) and the distance from the top of the greater trochanter of the femur to the floor (TF). Each individual was fitted according to these two measures, and elbow flexion angle was measured.
Results and Discussion
Inter‐observer reliability and the test–retest reliability were high in both TF (ICC3.1 = 0.918 and ICC2.1 = 0.935) and WF measures (ICC3.1 = 0.967 and ICC2.1 = 0.960). Only 1% of the individuals kept an elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation of 30° ± 10° when the cane length was determined by the TF measure, and 30% of the participants when the cane was determined by the WF measure. The minimal detectable cane length change was 2.2 cm.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that, even though both measures are reliable, cane length determined by WF distance is more appropriate to keep the elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation. The minimal detectable change corresponds to approximately a hole in the cane adjustment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/pri.1641 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826622843</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1826622843</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotl7AJ5As3YyeXJpklqVeoVIRXQ_pJKMpM5M6yVC68xF8Rp_E1OvK1TkHvvPx8yN0ROCUANCzZedOieBkCw0JlySjSoy2085GKqNUyAHaC2EBAEpI2EUDKhiRLGdDtJz4Zqk7F3yLfYUfVh7f2vjsTcCV7_BFiK7R0bVPeGwWfYh6Xls8a-3769udd23EE91aPLXtU3zGrsVJ1_Sti-sEnK9sXW9eZ7WxXRL0dQwHaKfSdbCH33MfPV5ePEyus-ns6mYynmYlo4RklVZSW50bATkjVpSWKWVIDrZU0nAxzysOFYAxGiSMONcMuMwVNzkZlRLYPjr58i47_9LbEIvGhTIFSnl9HwqiqBCUKs7-0LLzIXS2KlKfje7WBYFi0-_mLjb9JvT429rPG2t-wZ9CE5B9AStX2_W_ouLu_uZT-AHJ44YQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826622843</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults</title><source>Wiley</source><source>SPORTDiscus with Full Text</source><creator>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto ; Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira ; Lima, Waléria Paixão ; Lima, Camila Astolphi ; Amorim, César Ferreira ; Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</creator><creatorcontrib>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto ; Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira ; Lima, Waléria Paixão ; Lima, Camila Astolphi ; Amorim, César Ferreira ; Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Purpose
Our aim is to estimate inter‐observer reliability, test–retest reliability, anthropometric and biomechanical adequacy and minimal detectable change when measuring the length of single‐point adjustable canes in community‐dwelling older adults.
Methods
There are 112 participants in the study. They are men and women, aged 60 years and over, who were attending an outpatient community health centre. An exploratory study design was used. Participants underwent two assessments within the same day by two independent observers and by the same observer at an interval of 15–45 days. Two measures were used to establish the length of a single‐point adjustable cane: the distance from the distal wrist crease to the floor (WF) and the distance from the top of the greater trochanter of the femur to the floor (TF). Each individual was fitted according to these two measures, and elbow flexion angle was measured.
Results and Discussion
Inter‐observer reliability and the test–retest reliability were high in both TF (ICC3.1 = 0.918 and ICC2.1 = 0.935) and WF measures (ICC3.1 = 0.967 and ICC2.1 = 0.960). Only 1% of the individuals kept an elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation of 30° ± 10° when the cane length was determined by the TF measure, and 30% of the participants when the cane was determined by the WF measure. The minimal detectable cane length change was 2.2 cm.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that, even though both measures are reliable, cane length determined by WF distance is more appropriate to keep the elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation. The minimal detectable change corresponds to approximately a hole in the cane adjustment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1358-2267</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2865</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pri.1641</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26317393</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Accidental Falls - prevention & control ; Aged ; Anthropometry ; Canes - standards ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Gait - physiology ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; older people ; Orthotic Devices - standards ; orthotics ; physiotherapy ; Postural Balance - physiology ; Posture</subject><ispartof>Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2017-01, Vol.22 (1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fpri.1641$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fpri.1641$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,50923,51032</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26317393$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Waléria Paixão</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Camila Astolphi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amorim, César Ferreira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults</title><title>Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy</title><addtitle>Physiother Res Int</addtitle><description>Background and Purpose
Our aim is to estimate inter‐observer reliability, test–retest reliability, anthropometric and biomechanical adequacy and minimal detectable change when measuring the length of single‐point adjustable canes in community‐dwelling older adults.
Methods
There are 112 participants in the study. They are men and women, aged 60 years and over, who were attending an outpatient community health centre. An exploratory study design was used. Participants underwent two assessments within the same day by two independent observers and by the same observer at an interval of 15–45 days. Two measures were used to establish the length of a single‐point adjustable cane: the distance from the distal wrist crease to the floor (WF) and the distance from the top of the greater trochanter of the femur to the floor (TF). Each individual was fitted according to these two measures, and elbow flexion angle was measured.
Results and Discussion
Inter‐observer reliability and the test–retest reliability were high in both TF (ICC3.1 = 0.918 and ICC2.1 = 0.935) and WF measures (ICC3.1 = 0.967 and ICC2.1 = 0.960). Only 1% of the individuals kept an elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation of 30° ± 10° when the cane length was determined by the TF measure, and 30% of the participants when the cane was determined by the WF measure. The minimal detectable cane length change was 2.2 cm.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that, even though both measures are reliable, cane length determined by WF distance is more appropriate to keep the elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation. The minimal detectable change corresponds to approximately a hole in the cane adjustment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anthropometry</subject><subject>Canes - standards</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gait - physiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>older people</subject><subject>Orthotic Devices - standards</subject><subject>orthotics</subject><subject>physiotherapy</subject><subject>Postural Balance - physiology</subject><subject>Posture</subject><issn>1358-2267</issn><issn>1471-2865</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotl7AJ5As3YyeXJpklqVeoVIRXQ_pJKMpM5M6yVC68xF8Rp_E1OvK1TkHvvPx8yN0ROCUANCzZedOieBkCw0JlySjSoy2085GKqNUyAHaC2EBAEpI2EUDKhiRLGdDtJz4Zqk7F3yLfYUfVh7f2vjsTcCV7_BFiK7R0bVPeGwWfYh6Xls8a-3769udd23EE91aPLXtU3zGrsVJ1_Sti-sEnK9sXW9eZ7WxXRL0dQwHaKfSdbCH33MfPV5ePEyus-ns6mYynmYlo4RklVZSW50bATkjVpSWKWVIDrZU0nAxzysOFYAxGiSMONcMuMwVNzkZlRLYPjr58i47_9LbEIvGhTIFSnl9HwqiqBCUKs7-0LLzIXS2KlKfje7WBYFi0-_mLjb9JvT429rPG2t-wZ9CE5B9AStX2_W_ouLu_uZT-AHJ44YQ</recordid><startdate>201701</startdate><enddate>201701</enddate><creator>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto</creator><creator>Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira</creator><creator>Lima, Waléria Paixão</creator><creator>Lima, Camila Astolphi</creator><creator>Amorim, César Ferreira</creator><creator>Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201701</creationdate><title>Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults</title><author>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto ; Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira ; Lima, Waléria Paixão ; Lima, Camila Astolphi ; Amorim, César Ferreira ; Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anthropometry</topic><topic>Canes - standards</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gait - physiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>older people</topic><topic>Orthotic Devices - standards</topic><topic>orthotics</topic><topic>physiotherapy</topic><topic>Postural Balance - physiology</topic><topic>Posture</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Waléria Paixão</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Camila Astolphi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amorim, César Ferreira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Camara, Camila Thais Pinto</au><au>Freitas, Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira</au><au>Lima, Waléria Paixão</au><au>Lima, Camila Astolphi</au><au>Amorim, César Ferreira</au><au>Perracini, Monica Rodrigues</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults</atitle><jtitle>Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy</jtitle><addtitle>Physiother Res Int</addtitle><date>2017-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1358-2267</issn><eissn>1471-2865</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>Background and Purpose
Our aim is to estimate inter‐observer reliability, test–retest reliability, anthropometric and biomechanical adequacy and minimal detectable change when measuring the length of single‐point adjustable canes in community‐dwelling older adults.
Methods
There are 112 participants in the study. They are men and women, aged 60 years and over, who were attending an outpatient community health centre. An exploratory study design was used. Participants underwent two assessments within the same day by two independent observers and by the same observer at an interval of 15–45 days. Two measures were used to establish the length of a single‐point adjustable cane: the distance from the distal wrist crease to the floor (WF) and the distance from the top of the greater trochanter of the femur to the floor (TF). Each individual was fitted according to these two measures, and elbow flexion angle was measured.
Results and Discussion
Inter‐observer reliability and the test–retest reliability were high in both TF (ICC3.1 = 0.918 and ICC2.1 = 0.935) and WF measures (ICC3.1 = 0.967 and ICC2.1 = 0.960). Only 1% of the individuals kept an elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation of 30° ± 10° when the cane length was determined by the TF measure, and 30% of the participants when the cane was determined by the WF measure. The minimal detectable cane length change was 2.2 cm.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that, even though both measures are reliable, cane length determined by WF distance is more appropriate to keep the elbow flexion angle within the standard recommendation. The minimal detectable change corresponds to approximately a hole in the cane adjustment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26317393</pmid><doi>10.1002/pri.1641</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1358-2267 |
| ispartof | Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2017-01, Vol.22 (1), p.n/a |
| issn | 1358-2267 1471-2865 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826622843 |
| source | Wiley; SPORTDiscus with Full Text |
| subjects | Accidental Falls - prevention & control Aged Anthropometry Canes - standards Equipment Design Female Gait - physiology Humans Male Middle Aged older people Orthotic Devices - standards orthotics physiotherapy Postural Balance - physiology Posture |
| title | Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Adjustable One‐Point Cane Length in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-23T02%3A26%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Two%20Methods%20for%20Estimating%20Adjustable%20One%E2%80%90Point%20Cane%20Length%20in%20Community%E2%80%90Dwelling%20Older%20Adults&rft.jtitle=Physiotherapy%20research%20international%20:%20the%20journal%20for%20researchers%20and%20clinicians%20in%20physical%20therapy&rft.au=Camara,%20Camila%20Thais%20Pinto&rft.date=2017-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1358-2267&rft.eissn=1471-2865&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pri.1641&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826622843%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-fa87aea9d60931e6ce388d190ec87d46b9f40f00dda070544a3047984d915c703%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826622843&rft_id=info:pmid/26317393&rfr_iscdi=true |