MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411885427 · doi:10.1016/j.jht.2025.04.018

Reliability and validity of using smartphone sensor and photography to measure hand and upper extremity joint range of motion: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4411885427 on OpenAlexaff
Erfan Shafiee, Sohrob Milani Zadeh, Joy C. MacDermid, G. Daniel G. Langohr, James A. Johnson, LU Ze

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Range of motionMeasure (data warehouse)PhotographyComputer scienceMotion (physics)Range (aeronautics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationJoint (building)Artificial intelligenceMedicinePhysical therapyEngineeringArtData miningVisual artsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate Range of Motion measurement is vital for clinical decision-making. Traditional goniometers are reliable and valid tools but face challenges. Smartphones, with advanced technologies, are emerging as promising tools, necessitating validation for clinical integration. PURPOSE: The study aim is to appraise and synthesize the available evidence on the reliability and validity of smartphone sensors and photography in assessing the ROM of hand and upper extremity joints. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched the studies in which "smartphone sensor" or "smartphone photography" was employed as the method of upper limb ROM measurement from January 2001 to January 2023 to find relevant studies. We compared the studied methods to conventional goniometer as the gold standard and validated ROM measurement techniques. Two independent reviewers (SM and ES) assessed the methodological quality of reliability and validity of both category of studies using the Quality Appraisal Tool for studies of diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tools, respectively. Qualitative synthesis was the preferred method of summarizing and presenting the results. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were included in this study. The sample size across studies ranged from 10 to 171, and the mean age was 41 years old. Eleven out of 12 studies included in the photography category stated the good to excellent reliability or validity with respect to the goniometric measurements. Eight studies in the smartphone sensor category reported excellent reliability or validity (47%), seven studies stated good level of reliability or validity (41%), and two studies reported average or moderate level of reliability (12%). The quality assessment using the QAREL assessment tool was high in 11 studies (35%), moderate in 8 studies (26%) or low in 12 studies (39%). CONCLUSIONS: This review provides clinicians and researchers with evidence to support using smartphone photography and sensor applications as valid and reliable methods for ROM measurements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand TherapySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207