4.3 Article

Can Hip-Knee Line Angle Distinguish the Size of Pelvic Incidence?-Development of Quick Noninvasive Assessment Tool for Pelvic Incidence Classification

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031387

关键词

pelvic incidence; low back pain; hip-knee line; anthropometry; ROC curve; reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to identify effective measurement angles for pelvic incidence (PI) classification and develop a quick, noninvasive assessment tool. The results revealed that the HKL angle can accurately distinguish the size of PI and a reliable tool was designed for practical application.
This study aimed to explore effective measurement angles for pelvic incidence (PI) classification and to develop a quick, noninvasive assessment tool for PI classification. We defined five variation types of hip-knee line (HKL) angles and tested the discrimination ability of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis using 125 photographs of upright standing posture from the right lateral side. ROC analysis revealed an applicable HKL angle defined by the line connecting the most raised part of the buttock and the central point of the knee and the midthigh line. The acceptable cut-off points for discriminating small or large PIs in terms of HKL angle were 18.5 degrees for small PI (sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.79) and 21.5 degrees for large PI discrimination (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.72). In addition, we devised a quick noninvasive assessment tool for PI classification using the cut-offs of the HKL angle with a view to practical application. The results of intra- and inter-rater reliability ensured a substantial/moderate level of the tool (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.79; Fleiss's kappa coefficient, 0.50-0.54). These results revealed that the HKL angle can distinguish the size of the PI with a high/moderate discrimination ability. Furthermore, the tool indicated acceptable inter-/intra-rater reliability for practical applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据