196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24253798)
1. Assessments of lumbar flexion range of motion: intertester reliability and concurrent validity of 2 commonly used clinical tests.
Robinson HS; Mengshoel AM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Feb; 39(4):E270-5. PubMed ID: 24253798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantifying the lumbar flexion-relaxation phenomenon: theory, normative data, and clinical applications.
Neblett R; Mayer TG; Gatchel RJ; Keeley J; Proctor T; Anagnostis C
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(13):1435-46. PubMed ID: 12838103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Intertester reliability and validity of motion assessments during lumbar spine accessory motion testing.
Landel R; Kulig K; Fredericson M; Li B; Powers CM
Phys Ther; 2008 Jan; 88(1):43-9. PubMed ID: 18029394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reliability and validity of the Microgate Gyko for measuring range of motion of the low back.
Hamersma DT; Hofste A; Rijken NHM; Roe Of Rohé M; Oosterveld FGJ; Soer R
Musculoskelet Sci Pract; 2020 Feb; 45():102091. PubMed ID: 31735439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reliability of the modified-modified Schöber and double inclinometer methods for measuring lumbar flexion and extension.
Williams R; Binkley J; Bloch R; Goldsmith CH; Minuk T
Phys Ther; 1993 Jan; 73(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 8417457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The quantified lumbar flexion-relaxation phenomenon is a useful measurement of improvement in a functional restoration program.
Mayer TG; Neblett R; Brede E; Gatchel RJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Oct; 34(22):2458-65. PubMed ID: 19789467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Modified-Modified Schober Test for range of motion assessment of lumbar flexion in patients with low back pain: a study of criterion validity, intra- and inter-rater reliability and minimum metrically detectable change.
Tousignant M; Poulin L; Marchand S; Viau A; Place C
Disabil Rehabil; 2005 May; 27(10):553-9. PubMed ID: 16019864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index: pilot testing of consistency, reliability, and validity.
Hart RA; Gundle KR; Pro SL; Marshall LM
Spine J; 2013 Feb; 13(2):157-61. PubMed ID: 23337543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. On "intertester reliability and validity of motion assessments..." Landel et al. Phys Ther. 2008;88:43-49.
Abbott JH
Phys Ther; 2008 Apr; 88(4):536; author reply 536-7. PubMed ID: 18381299
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Intratester and intertester reliability of the Cybex electronic digital inclinometer (EDI-320) for measurement of active neck flexion and extension in healthy subjects.
Tousignant M; Boucher N; Bourbonnais J; Gravelle T; Quesnel M; Brosseau L
Man Ther; 2001 Nov; 6(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 11673934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The reliability and concurrent validity of a new iPhone® application for measuring active lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion in patients with low back pain.
Pourahmadi M; Momeni E; Mohseni N; Hesarikia H; Ghanjal A; Shamsoddini A
Physiother Theory Pract; 2021 Jan; 37(1):204-217. PubMed ID: 31081417
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The Spineangel: Examining the validity and reliability of a novel clinical device for monitoring trunk motion.
Intolo P; Carman AB; Milosavljevic S; Abbott JH; Baxter GD
Man Ther; 2010 Apr; 15(2):160-6. PubMed ID: 19945335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reliability of the assessment of lumbar range of motion and maximal isometric strength in patients with chronic low back pain.
Roussel NA; Truijen S; De Kerf I; Lambeets D; Nijs J; Stassijns G
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2008 Apr; 89(4):788-91. PubMed ID: 18374015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Thoracolumbar proprioception in individuals with and without low back pain: intratester reliability, clinical applicability, and validity.
Koumantakis GA; Winstanley J; Oldham JA
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 2002 Jul; 32(7):327-35. PubMed ID: 12113467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of lumbar proprioception as measured in unrestrained standing in individuals with disc replacement, with low back pain, and without low back pain.
Hobbs AJ; Adams RD; Shirley D; Hillier TM
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 2010 Jul; 40(7):439-46. PubMed ID: 20592482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain.
Melikoglu MA; Kocabas H; Sezer I; Bilgilisoy M; Tuncer T
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Mar; 34(6):E219-24. PubMed ID: 19282728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Intertester agreement and validity of identifying lumbar pain provocative movement patterns using active and passive accessory movement tests.
Hidalgo B; Hall T; Nielens H; Detrembleur C
J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2014 Feb; 37(2):105-15. PubMed ID: 24401656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pelvic mobility when bending forward in standing position: validity and reliability of 2 motion analysis devices.
Perret C; Poiraudeau S; Fermanian J; Revel M
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2001 Feb; 82(2):221-6. PubMed ID: 11239314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Inter- and intrarater reliability of a back range of motion instrument.
Kachingwe AF; Phillips BJ
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2005 Dec; 86(12):2347-53. PubMed ID: 16344034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A new device for assessing ankle dorsiflexion motion: reliability and validity.
Wilken J; Rao S; Estin M; Saltzman CL; Yack HJ
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 2011 Apr; 41(4):274-80. PubMed ID: 21460462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
