4.1 Article

Reliability of popliteal angle measurement - A study in cerebral palsy patients and healthy controls

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 648-652

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180dca15d

Keywords

reliability; cerebral palsy; popliteal angle; visual estimation; goniometric measurement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The popliteal angle is a widely used clinical measure for hamstring contracture in cerebral palsy (CP) patients and in healthy individuals. The reliability of popliteal angle measurement is being questioned. The aim of this study is to determine the reliability of popliteal angle measurement by means of visual and goniometric assessment. Methods: Three different observers measured the popliteal angle in 15 CP patients and 15 healthy volunteers. In each subject, popliteal angles were visually estimated and measured with a blinded goniometer twice by all observers with approximately I hour between measurement sessions. Results: All intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were lower in the CP group compared with healthy controls. The ICC for intraobserver differences was higher than 0.75 for both groups. The ICC for interobserver reliability of visual estimates and goniometric measurements was low for both groups. Intermethod ICC was higher than 0.75 for both groups. Conclusions: Measurements in the CP group seemed to be less reliable than measurements in the control group. Intraobserver reliability is reasonable for both groups, but lower in CP patients than in controls. Interobserver reliability of both visual estimates and goniometrical measurements is poor. No significant differences in reliability have been found between visual estimation and goniometric measurement. Because of poor interobserver reliability of popliteal angle measurement, this should not be the only variable in clinical decision making in CP patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available