PubMed · 10086908
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D L Menkes, M R Swenson. 1999. F waves.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4598(199903)22%3A3%3C426%3A%3Aaid-mus22%3E3.0.co%3B2-e
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Spinal range of motion has been studied by use of a variety of different methods. One electrogoniometer has been used as a noninvasive, reliable, and accurate method. The accuracy and precision of this device has not been sufficiently documented. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the precision and accuracy of an electrogoniometer in comparison with two manual protractors. STUDY DESIGN: This study investigated the precision and accuracy of an electrogoniometer (OSI CA 6000). METHODS: The precision and accuracy of the electrogoniometer were determined by a series of tests against two manual protractors. Six different movement directions were tested and 4 or 5 different angles for a given movement direction were evaluated. RESULTS: The precision of the electrogoniometer was found to be +/- 0.1 degree for 4 different angles (10 degrees, 20 degrees, 40 degrees, and 60 degrees) in 6 different movement directions (flexion, extension, left lateral flexion, right lateral flexion, left rotation, and right rotation). The accuracy was tested by comparing both manual protractors with the electrogoniometer. Substantial disagreement for 27 of 28 datasets was found. In only one dataset was there agreement between the two manual protractors and the electrogoniometer. The mean differences were in the interval 2.0% to 11.5% between the electrogoniometer and the protractors. CONCLUSION: The electrogoniometer evaluated has a very high precision when range of motion measurements are made. However, the accuracy of the device is less than acceptable.
Neurophysiological studies test the integrity of nerve roots and nerves at different points from the spinal cord to the periphery. EMG is the most sensitive neurophysiological test for evaluating patients with radiculopathy, providing information on diagnosis, location, and prognosis. F-wave and H-reflex studies may be abnormal, but the information that they provide is nonspecific and usually redundant because the needle examination is abnormal anyway. Somatosensory evoked potentials are less sensitive and specific than EMG for diagnosing a radiculopathy, but uncommonly may be the only abnormality. Magnetic stimulation, paraspinal mapping, and cervical root stimulation are investigational techniques of uncertain utility.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.