Skip to main content

Reliability and minimal detectable change of the ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set for the evaluation of spinal and lower limb kinematics in adults

Abstract

Objectives

As a step towards the comprehensive evaluation of movement in patients with low back pain, the aim of this study is to design a marker set (three rigid segment spine, pelvic and lower limb model) and evaluate the reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of this marker set in healthy adults during gait and sit to stand (STS) tasks using three dimensional motion capture.

Results

The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set was used to assess relative peak angles during gait and STS tasks using the minimum recommended sample size (n = 10) for reliability studies with minimum Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.70, optimum ICC 0.90 and 9 trials replicated per subject per task. Intra- and inter-tester reliability between an experienced and inexperienced user was examined. ICC, mean, standard error (SEM), Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and MDC were computed.

ICC values demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-tester reliability in both tasks, particularly in the sagittal plane (majority ICCs > 0.80). SEM measurements were lower in gait (0.8–5.5°) than STS tasks (1°-12.6°) as were MDC values. LOA demonstrated good agreement. The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set is reliable for use in healthy adults during functional tasks. Future evaluation in patients is required.

Introduction

The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set was developed to assess spinal and lower limb movement or kinematics during functional tasks using three dimensional motion capture (3DMC). To date, spinal movement has been examined in both healthy and patient populations using regional lumbar [1,2,3] or multiple spine segments [4,5,6]. Although, some consider the contribution of the spine, pelvis and lower limbs towards assessing spinal movement, few have analysed the absolute measures of measurement error and minimal detectable change (MDC). MDC describes the amount of change that is greater than the measurement error for each joint and plane of movement [7]. This permits kinematic data to be interpreted in a clinically meaningful manner, enabling the assessment of true differences.

Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely common symptom [8] associated with difficulties walking and sitting to standing (STS) [9]. Since current LBP management is at best, moderately effective [10], it is necessary to consider alternative therapeutic targets. Steps have been taken towards this through the examination of spine and lower limb segment motion in healthy adults using one and two rigid spinal models [7, 11]. However, spinal models with more than two rigid segments will be required in order to reliably characterise and interpret movement during activities that are important to LBP patients [12].

This preliminary study builds upon previous research through the development of a three rigid segmented spine, pelvic and bilateral lower limb marker set, the ‘Imperial Spine’. The objective of this study is to establish the reliability and MDC values relating to the ‘Imperial Spine’ in adults during gait and STS tasks using 3DMC as a step towards evaluation in LBP patients.

Main text

Methods

The sample size was determined and study design optimised using recommendations previously described (\(\alpha =0.05, \beta =0.20)\) [13]. Healthy adults (4 males, 6 females) were recruited from University staff (mean age 30.8 (25.8–35.8) years, mean body mass index 23.4 (19.0–27.6) kg/m2). Strict criteria ensured that participants had no current or past history of LBP, spine or lower limb extremity trauma, neurological or musculoskeletal history that would affect task performance. Each participant provided written informed consent (REC Ref. 15IC2985).

Reliability testing

Reliability of the ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set was evaluated using testers with and without prior clinical knowledge; tester 1(JD) (physiotherapist, 16 years clinical experience) and tester 2 (EP) (biomechanist, no prior clinical experience). Prior to subject testing each tester completed training including marker set familiarisation (30 min) and practical training (60 min) using standardised written instruction to reduce tester bias.

Each session comprised of 5 gait and 5 STS trials, 2 of which involved participant familiarisation. The gait task required unshod participants to walk at a comfortable speed over a level 6 m walkway at a self-selected pace. The STS task required participants to stand up from a backless chair with arms crossed, knees initially flexed to 90° and both feet assuming a ‘natural stance position’. Participants followed standardised verbal instruction.

Prior to the first session tester 1 (JD1) applied the marker set to participants using double-sided tape. On completion of the tasks, the marker set was systematically removed by tester 1 using alcohol swabs to remove signs of adhesive. An interval of 45 min was observed to ensure participant rest and to engage tester 1 in unrelated activities to minimise memory bias. During the second session the marker set was then re-applied and removed by tester 2 (EP) as described. Following the same interval, tester 1 repeated this sequence (JD2).

Testers were not permitted to observe each other or communicate during testing and were blinded to all kinematic outputs.

The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set and data processing

The ‘Imperial spine’ was modelled in three segments according to easily identifiable anatomical landmarks; upper thoracic (T1-T6), lower thoracic (T7-T12) and lumbar (L1-L5). The upper thoracic (UT) segment was defined with its origin in T6, vertical axis from T6 to T1 (+ y) and horizontal axis through T6 (+ z to the right). The lower thoracic (LT) segment was defined with its origin in T12, vertical axis from T12 to T7 (+ y) and horizontal axis through T12 (+ z to the right). The lumbar (L) segment was defined with its origin in L5, vertical axis from L5 to L1 (+ y) and horizontal axis through L5 (+ z to the right) (Fig. 1). Pelvic, hip, thigh, shank and foot local co-ordinate systems were also defined and reconstructed from joint centres and easily identifiable anatomical landmarks on the pelvis and lower limb [14,15,16].

Fig. 1
figure1

The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set, segments and local anatomical frames. For all local anatomical frames, the + y axis (cephalad) is indicated in green, the + z axis (towards the right) in blue and the + x axis (perpendicular to both + y and + z axes) in red

Anatomical frames of the pelvis, thigh and shank were referenced to the corresponding technical frames (constructed from technical clusters of markers) in the static calibration trial such that anatomical markers (ASIS, PSIS, MFC, LFC, LMAL, MMAL) (Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Table S1) could be removed prior to dynamic trial, permitting freedom of movement. All trials were recorded at 100 Hz using a 10-camera 3DMC system (Vicon Nexus (T160), Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, UK) [17].

The onset and cessation of each task were determined using kinematics from each gait [18] and STS motion cycle [12, 19]. Each cycle was extracted (Vicon Nexus (T160), Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, UK) and filtered using a Woltring cross-validity quantic spline routine [20]. The data was then normalised to 100% of each motion cycle (MATLAB, Mathworks, Natick, MA., U.S.A.). 3D Kinematics of each segment and joints were calculated using the Joint Coordinate System (JCS) convention [21] and computed using Bodybuilder and Vicon Nexus software (Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford U.K.). The average relative peak angles were then extrapolated.

Statistical analysis

The normality of the data was confirmed using Q-Q plots and the Shapiro Wilks test (significance level p ≥ 0.05). Inter-tester and intra-tester ICCs (3, k) (2-way mixed model) and the 95% confidence intervals were derived. ICC values of 0.70 were considered acceptable, 0.75–1.00 excellent, 0.40–0.74 fair to good and ≤ 0.40 poor [22].

The mean peak joint angles (mean session one and two measurements), mean of the differences between measurements at session one and two (Mean Diff), the respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for these differences, the standard deviation of the differences (SD Diff) and the 95% levels of agreement (95% LOA) were determined [23] in frontal, sagittal and transverse planes. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated \((SEM = SD\;Diff \div \sqrt {2} )\) [24]. The minimal detectable change (MDC), which expresses the amount of joint angle change was also calculated \((MDC=1.96\times \sqrt{2}\times SEM)\) [25].

ICC statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software (SPSS Statistics Version 22, IBM, Chicago, IL., U.S.A.). A critical level p < 0.05 was defined as significant. Mean, Mean Diff, 95% CI, SD Diff, 95% LOA, SEM and MDC calculations were computed using Microsoft Excel (Excel 2010, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA., U.S.A.).

Results

Gait task

Analysis of the mean peak joint angles for the spine and lower limbs demonstrated that 70% of intra-tester and 76% of inter-tester ICC scores were excellent (0.75–0.99). The remainder ranged between 0.60–0.74 (intra-tester) and 0.50–0.56 (inter-tester). Overall, ICC values were higher in the sagittal plane (for both intra- and inter-tester reliability), whilst those in the frontal and transverse planes were lower (Table 1). Kinematic waveforms reflect this agreement (Additional file 2: Figure S1, Additional file 3: Figure S2 and Additional file 4: Figure S3).

Table 1 Gait task

The SEM values were ≤ 5.3° and ≤ 5.5° for all intra- and inter-tester trials respectively, with 91% of values falling below 5°. The mean differences between sessions for all parameters were lower for intra-tester trials (≤ 0.9°, except 1.3° for peak lumbar abduction/adduction) than inter-tester trials (≤ 1.4°, except 3.4° for peak hip internal/external rotation). The MDC values ranged between 2.4 and 4.7° (intra-tester) and 2.4°–15.3° (inter-tester).

Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement for both intra-tester and inter-tester trials are outlined in Table 1.

STS task

The mean peak joint angles for the spine and lower limbs demonstrated ICC ranges of − 0.82–0.98 (intra-tester) and − 0.52–0.97 (inter-tester). 76% of intra-tester and 52% of inter-tester ICC scores indicated excellent reliability (0.75–0.99). ICC values were higher in the sagittal plane; 0.83–0.98 (intra-tester) and 0.89–0.97 (inter-tester, except 0.52 at the ankle) and lower in the transverse and frontal planes (− 0.2 to 0.89) (Table 2). Kinematic waveforms reflect this agreement (Additional file 2: Figure S1, Additional file 3: Figure S2 and Additional file 4: Figure S3).

Table 2 STS task

SEM values were ≤ 5° for intra- and inter-tester trials respectively with the exception of pelvic tilt, rotation, hip flexion/extension and ab/adduction and lumbar flexion/extension (SEM range: 5.1–12.6°, with the largest error in pelvic rotation). Similar to the gait task, mean differences for all parameters between sessions were lower for intra-tester trials (≤ 3.9°) than inter-tester trials (≤ 5.3°). The range of MDC values was wider in the STS task (2.9–34.9° (intra-tester) and 3.6–25.6° (inter-tester)) compared to the gait task with the highest values relating to pelvic rotation in both cases.

Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement for both intra-tester and inter-tester STS trials are outlined in Table 2.

Discussion

To our knowledge, reliability has not been previously examined amongst experienced and inexperienced testers during both gait and STS tasks using a three rigid segmented spine, pelvic and lower limb model in adults. Similar gait studies, which focussed on a two rigid spine segment model with lower limbs but without pelvic outputs [11, 26], also found small mean intra-tester differences (Mean Diff Intra-tester). The ‘Imperial Spine’ (3 rigid spine segment model including pelvic and lower limb outputs) builds upon this; inter-tester kinematics differences (Mean Diff Inter-tester) were low within both gait and STS tasks.

Systematic reviews of the reliability of 3DMC kinematic measurements have demonstrated that reliability varies between studies due to methodological variation [1, 27], which makes direct comparison difficult. Overall, ICCs are reported to be above 0.7 for most range of movement parameters [1] and are highest within the sagittal plane [27]. These findings concur with this current study (median ICC for gait and STS tasks > 0.89 for intra- and inter-tester data) and that of more recent work [28, 29].

Transverse plane measurements are typically less reliable (median ICC < 0.72) [27]. However, using the ‘Imperial Spine’, the median values are increased in both transverse and frontal planes (median ICC > 0.80 for gait and STS task for intra- and inter-tester data) with the exception of transverse and frontal plane inter-tester ICCs for the STS tasks (median 0.60 and 0.62 respectively). To our knowledge, this has not been investigated until now in healthy adults using a multi-segmental spine and bilateral lower limb model.

In agreement with this current study, higher intra-tester than inter-tester reliability is reported [27] and may represent a difference in tester experience [7]. It is proposed that errors between 2 and 5° are acceptable [27]. In this current study the SEM for STS tasks (intra- and inter-tester) was higher than this, as one would expect for a task requiring through range movement (SEM range 1.0–7.8, except for peak pelvic rotation), and was lower in gait trials (SEM range 0.8–5.5). Although, the corresponding MDC ranges approximate values recently cited during gait and STS tasks [28, 29], the MDC range in our study was wider during STS.

Despite unavoidable and well documented errors implicated in 3DMC, these findings indicate that it should be possible to reliably establish kinematic differences using the ‘Imperial Spine’. In order to identify potential therapeutic targets, further testing will be required in LBP patients.

Limitations

Although a pragmatic sample size was used in this study [13], reflecting that of previous reliability trials [1, 5, 30], the authors recognise that an increased sample size would have further enhanced reliability and MDC outcomes. Participants were examined by each tester following a 45 min rest period, which could also be considered a limitation. This was necessary to ensure that measurements were made at the same time of day to ensure that the diurnal changes of the spine (disc hydration) in this cohort or changes in movement over time did not account for the changes observed.

It is important to note that the reported error in the ‘Imperial Spine’ relates to healthy participants and therefore, is not applicable to a patient population. Future work will include the examination of spinal, pelvic and lower limb kinematics in LBP patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during this study are available upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ASIS:

Anterior Superior Iliac Spine

CI:

Confidence Interval

3D:

Three Dimensional

3DMC:

Three Dimensional Motion Capture

ICC:

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

JCS:

Joint Co-ordinate System

LFC:

Lateral Femoral Condyle

LMAL:

Lateral Malleolus

LOA:

Level of Agreement

LBP:

Low Back Pain

LT:

Lower Thoracic

L:

Lumbar

Mean Diff:

Mean of the Differences

MFC:

Medial Femoral Condyle

MMAL:

Medial Malleolus

MDC:

Minimal Detectable Change

PSIS:

Posterior Superior Iliac Spine

SD:

Standard Deviation

SD Diff:

Standard Deviation of the Differences

SEM:

Standard Error of the Mean

STS:

Sit to stand

UT:

Upper Thoracic

References

  1. 1.

    Mieritz RM, Bronfort G, Kawchuk G, Breen A, Hartvigsen J. Reliability and measurement error of 3-dimensional regional lumbar motion measures: a systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012;35:645–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Harsted S, Mieritz RM, Bronfort G, Hartvigsen J. Reliability and measurement error of frontal and horizontal 3D spinal motion parameters in 219 patients with chronic low back pain. Chiropr Man Therap. 2016;24:13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Needham R, Stebbins J, Chockalingam N. Three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbar spine during gait using marker-based systems: a systematic review. J Med Eng Technol. 2016;40(4):172–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Christe G, Redhead L, Legrand T, Jolles BM, Favre J. Multi-segment analysis of spinal kinematics during sit-to-stand in patients with chronic low back pain. J Biomech. 2016;49(10):2060–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mason DL, Preece SJ, Bramah CA, Herrington LC. Reproducibility of kinematic measures of the thoracic spine, lumbar spine and pelvis during fast running. Gait Posture. 2016;43:96–100.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hidalgo B, Gilliaux M, Poncin W, Detrembleur C. Reliability and validity of a kinematic spine model during active trunk movement in healthy subjects and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:756–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wilken JM, Rodriguez KM, Brawner M, Darter BJ. Reliability and Minimal Detectible Change values for gait kinematics and kinetics in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2012;35:301–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:2028–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Deane JA, McGregor AH. Current and future perspectives on lumbar degenerative disc disease: a UK survey exploring specialist multidisciplinary clinical opinion. BMJ open. 2016;6(9):e011075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fernandes R, Armada-da-Silva P, Pool-Goudaazward A, Moniz-Pereira V, Veloso AP. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional gait analysis in chronic low back pain patients. Gait Posture. 2015;42:491–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Papi E, Bull AMJ, McGregor AH. Spinal segment do not move together predictably during daily activities. Gait Posture. 2019;67:277–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wu G, Siegler S, Allard P, Kirtley C, Leardini A, Rosenbaum D, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—part I: ankle, hip, and spine. J Biomech. 2002;35:543–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ugbolue UC, Papi E, Kaliarntas KT, Kerr A, Earl L, Pomeroy VM, Rowe PJ. The evaluation of an inexpensive, 2D, video based gait assessment system for clinical use. Gait Posture. 2013;38(3):483–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.01.018.

  16. 16.

    Harrington ME, Zavatsky AB, Lawson SEM, Yuan Z, Theologis TN. Prediction of the hip joint centre in adults, children, and patients with cerebral palsy based on magnetic resonance imaging. J Biomech. 2007;40:595–602.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Merriaux P, Dupuis Y, Boutteau R, Vasseur P, Savatier X. A study of vicon system positioning performance. Sensors. 2017;17(7):E1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Banks JJ, Chang W-R, Xu X, Chang C-C. Using horizontal heel displacement to identify heel strike instants in normal gait. Gait Posture. 2015;42:101–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Burnfield JM, McCrory B, Shu Y, Buster TW, Taylor AP, Goldman AJ. Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1331–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Woltring HJ. A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Adv Eng Softw (1978). 1986;8:104–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng. 1983;105:136–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic. 1981;86:127–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fernandes R, Armada-da-Silva P, Pool-Goudaazward A, Moniz-Pereira V, Veloso AP. Three dimensional multi-segmental trunk kinematics and kinetics during gait: Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change. Gait Posture. 2016;46:18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    McGinley JL, Baker R, Wolfe R, Morris ME. The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2009;29:360–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Matheve T, De Baets L, Rast F, Bauer C, Timmermans A. Within/between-session reliability and agreement of lumbopelvic kinematics in the sagittal plane during functional movement control tasks in healthy persons. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;33:90–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bagheri R, Ebrahimi Takamjani I, Dadgoo M, Ahmadi A, Sarrafzadeh J, Pourahmadi MR, Jafarpisheh AS. Gender-related differences in reliability of thorax, lumbar, and pelvis kinematics during gait in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Ann Rehabil Med. 2018;42(2):239–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Pourahmadi MR, Takamjani IE, Jaberzadeh S, Sarrafzadeh J, Sanjari MA, Bagheri R, et al. Kinematics of the Spine during sit-to-stand using motion analysis systems: a systematic review of literature. J Sport Rehabil. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2017-0147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of Dr Megan Sperry and her contributions towards the preliminary design and Deborah Ridout (University College London) for her statistical support.

Funding

JD is funded by an Allied Health doctoral fellowship awarded by Versus Arthritis (grant number 20172). The authors also acknowledge support from the Arthritis Research UK/MRC (Medical Research Council) Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work (grant number 20665) and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JD EP AP AM were involved in the conception and design of this study. JD and EP designed the final model. JD EP performed the experiments. JD completed final data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. A. Deane.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the College Research Committee (REC Ref. 15IC2985). Participants provided verbal and written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Positioning of the ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set.

Additional file 2:

Figure S1. Mean spine and lower limb sagittal waveforms during gait (left panel) and STS (right panel) tasks.

Additional file 3:

Figure S2. Mean spine and lower limb frontal waveforms during gait (left panel) and STS (right panel) tasks.

Additional file 4:

Figure S3. Mean spine and lower limb transverse waveforms during gait (left panel) and STS (right panel) tasks.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deane, J.A., Papi, E., Phillips, A.T.M. et al. Reliability and minimal detectable change of the ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set for the evaluation of spinal and lower limb kinematics in adults. BMC Res Notes 13, 495 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05295-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marker set
  • Kinematics
  • Spine
  • Low back pain
  • Gait
  • Sit to stand
  • Minimal detectable change
  • Reliability
  • Three dimensional motion capture
  • Motion technology