English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective Frontal plane knee alignment plays an integral role in tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis development and progression. Accessible methods for obtaining direct or indirect measures of knee alignment may help inform clinical decision making when specialized equipment is unavailable. The present study evaluated the concurrent validity, as well as intersession (within-rater) and interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry for measuring static frontal plane tibial alignment—a known proxy of frontal plane knee alignment. Methods Twenty healthy individuals and 38 patients with knee osteoarthritis were measured for frontal plane tibial alignment by a pair of raters using smartphone inclinometry, manual inclinometry, and 3-dimensional motion capture simultaneously. Healthy participants were measured on 2 separate days. Bland-Altman analysis, supplemented with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(2,k), was used to assess concurrent validity. ICC(2,k), SEM, and minimum detectable change with 95% confidence limits (MDC95) were used to assess measurement reliability. Results Compared against motion capture, smartphone inclinometry measured frontal plane tibial alignment with a mean difference of 0.7 and 1.1 degrees (biased toward varus) for healthy participants and participants with knee osteoarthritis, respectively (ICC[2,k] ≥ 0.87). Smartphone inclinometry measurements demonstrated adequate intersession (within-rater) relative (ICC[2,k] = 0.91) and absolute (SEM = 0.7 degrees; MDC95 = 1.8 degrees) reliability, which outperformed manual inclinometry (ICC[2,k] = 0.85; SEM = 1.0 degrees; MDC95 = 2.6 degrees). Interrater (within-session) reliability of smartphone inclinometry was acceptable in both cohorts (ICC[2,k] = 0.93; SEM = 0.4 degrees to 1.2 degrees; MDC95 = 1.2 degrees to 3.2 degrees). Conclusion Smartphone inclinometry is sufficiently valid and reliable for measuring frontal plane tibial alignment in healthy individuals and patients with medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis. Impact Smartphones are readily accessible by clinicians and researchers. Our assessment of measurement validity and reliability supports the use of smartphone inclinometry as a clinically available tool to measure frontal plane tibial alignment without medical imaging or specialized equipment.

Smartphone Inclinometry Is a Valid and Reliable Tool for Measuring Frontal Plane Tibial Alignment in Healthy and Osteoarthritic Knees