Evidence Hub

Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity assessment of a novel high-frequency sensor device for anterior tibial translation measurement in loaded and unloaded condition: an exploratory cross-sectional study

Valentin Deiss, Philippe Bähler, Pascal Kolly, Anton Schärer, Philipp Henle, P. Eichelberger, Nathanael Lutz, Heiner Baur

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2024

20 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and manual tests remain the standard for diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Furthermore, the passive knee displacement, also described as anterior tibial translation (ATT), is used in order to make decisions about surgery or to assess rehabilitation outcomes. Unfortunately, these manual tests are limited to passive situations, and their application to assess knee stability in loaded, weight-bearing positions are missing. Therefore, a new device with high-performance sensors and a new sensor setting was developed. The aim of this exploratory cross-sectional study was to assess the test-retest reliability of this new device in a first step and the concurrent validity in a second step. Methods A total of 20 healthy volunteers were measured. Measurement consistency of the new device was assessed on the basis of reliability during Lachman test setting and in loaded position by artificial knee perturbation in a test-retest procedure. In a second step, the concurrent validity was evaluated with the Lachmeter® as a reference instrument. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland-Altman analysis were evaluated to assess the quality criteria. Results The measurements with the new device during the Lachman test provided a mean ATT of 5.46±2.22mm. The SEM ranged from 0.60 to 0.69mm resulting in an MDC between 1.67 and 1.93mm for the new device.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free