Cargando…

An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set

Multiple marker sets and models are currently available for assessing pelvic kinematics in gait. Despite the presence of a variety models, there are still debates on their reliability and consistency, and consequently there is no clearly defined standard. Two marker sets were evaluated in this study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Borhani, Maedeh, McGregor, Alison H., Bull, Anthony M.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Sciencem 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23790572
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.019
_version_ 1782312116043120640
author Borhani, Maedeh
McGregor, Alison H.
Bull, Anthony M.J.
author_facet Borhani, Maedeh
McGregor, Alison H.
Bull, Anthony M.J.
author_sort Borhani, Maedeh
collection PubMed
description Multiple marker sets and models are currently available for assessing pelvic kinematics in gait. Despite the presence of a variety models, there are still debates on their reliability and consistency, and consequently there is no clearly defined standard. Two marker sets were evaluated in this study: the ‘Traditional’ where markers are placed at the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines (ASISs, PSISs); and the ‘Cluster’, where a cluster of three orthogonal markers fixed on a rigid based is attached to the sacrum. The two sets were compared with respect to intra and inter session standard deviations of maximum pelvic tilt, obliquity and rotation angles. The repeatability between and within sessions was measured using coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC). Also the similarity between the two sets was assessed using inter-protocol CMC (ipCMC). Both data sets generated showed high within and between session repeatability in the sagittal plane (CMC > 0.80), although the Cluster method showed higher repeatability than that of the Traditional method in non-sagittal plane motion for both within and between sessions. The authors are not aware of other studies reporting the differences in intra and inter session variability and repeatability values for different body mass index categories such as overweight and obese subjects with relatively large sample size. Hence the Cluster method overcomes a number of theoretical and experimental limitations such as minimising the marker occlusion and is a reliable alternative to the Traditional (the standard) marker set.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3989066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier Sciencem
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39890662014-04-17 An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set Borhani, Maedeh McGregor, Alison H. Bull, Anthony M.J. Gait Posture Article Multiple marker sets and models are currently available for assessing pelvic kinematics in gait. Despite the presence of a variety models, there are still debates on their reliability and consistency, and consequently there is no clearly defined standard. Two marker sets were evaluated in this study: the ‘Traditional’ where markers are placed at the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines (ASISs, PSISs); and the ‘Cluster’, where a cluster of three orthogonal markers fixed on a rigid based is attached to the sacrum. The two sets were compared with respect to intra and inter session standard deviations of maximum pelvic tilt, obliquity and rotation angles. The repeatability between and within sessions was measured using coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC). Also the similarity between the two sets was assessed using inter-protocol CMC (ipCMC). Both data sets generated showed high within and between session repeatability in the sagittal plane (CMC > 0.80), although the Cluster method showed higher repeatability than that of the Traditional method in non-sagittal plane motion for both within and between sessions. The authors are not aware of other studies reporting the differences in intra and inter session variability and repeatability values for different body mass index categories such as overweight and obese subjects with relatively large sample size. Hence the Cluster method overcomes a number of theoretical and experimental limitations such as minimising the marker occlusion and is a reliable alternative to the Traditional (the standard) marker set. Elsevier Sciencem 2013-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3989066/ /pubmed/23790572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.019 Text en © 2013 Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Borhani, Maedeh
McGregor, Alison H.
Bull, Anthony M.J.
An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title_full An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title_fullStr An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title_full_unstemmed An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title_short An alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
title_sort alternative technical marker set for the pelvis is more repeatable than the standard pelvic marker set
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23790572
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.019
work_keys_str_mv AT borhanimaedeh analternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset
AT mcgregoralisonh analternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset
AT bullanthonymj analternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset
AT borhanimaedeh alternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset
AT mcgregoralisonh alternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset
AT bullanthonymj alternativetechnicalmarkersetforthepelvisismorerepeatablethanthestandardpelvicmarkerset