<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-06-01T02:00:26Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/8251" metadataPrefix="marc">https://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/8251</identifier><datestamp>2026-02-03T12:16:58Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10630_2254</setSpec><setSpec>col_10630_37959</setSpec></header><metadata><record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
   <leader>00925njm 22002777a 4500</leader>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="042">
      <subfield code="a">dc</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2014-10-16</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">Background: Nowadays, as internet-based communication is advancing rapidly, it is getting more and more interesting to adapt clinical examination of patients to remote communication. The use of smartphone photographic is presented as a method for studying the measurement of shoulders joint ROM.&#xd;
Objective: To investigate the reliability of smartphone photographic measurements of upper limbs abduction angle through mRom app compared to inertial sensors as the criterion standard.&#xd;
Methods: This cross-sectional involved 28 subjects: 14 healthy persons and 14 persons suffering from shoulder pathology. Descriptive and anthropometric independent variables were included. A physical property was included corresponding to a dependent variable: mobility angle (degrees), which was obtained thought two different devices. On the one hand, as criterion standard, the inertial measurement sensors with two inertial sensors (InertiaCube3™ Intersense Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts) located in the middle third of the humerus slightly posterior and in the flat part of the sternum. It contains an inertial 3 Degree of Freedom orientation tracking system: yaw, pitch, and roll. On the other hand, degrees were also obtained using a smartphone Nexus 4 (LG Electronics INC, Yeouido-dong, Seoul) with an 8 megapixels main camera and a 4.7 inches Corning Gorilla Glass 2 touchscreen. The app used was mROM Lite (Brain Dynamics SL, Málaga, Spain), available in google store. Three photographs were taken by two examiners from 3 independents set of images, and they were taken at the same time as inertial measurement. Participants were placed standing, starting from neutral position, performing shoulder abduction.&#xd;
Results: The mean ± SD age of the healthy participants (8 female, 6 male) was 56.1 ± 9.1 years, and their body mass index (BMI) was 27.12 ± 3.8 Kg/m2. The mean ± SD age of the participants with shoulder pathology (8 female, 6 male) was 54.4 ± 10 years and their average BMI was 28± 6.7 Kg/m2. &#xd;
Intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(2-1) for intrarrater reliability for inertial measurements taken by the first examiner was 0.993 (95%CI: 0.983, 0.998) for subject with pathological shoulders, 0.982 (95%CI: 0.736, 0.962) for healthy subjects and 0.992 (95%CI: 0.984, 0.996) for the total sample. Values for photographic measurements were 0.865 (95%CI: 0.670, 0.953) for healthy subjects, 0.991 (95%CI: 0.977, 0.997) for subjects suffering from shoulder pathology and 0.996 (95%CI: 0.992, 0.998) for the total sample.&#xd;
The ICC(2-1) for measurements taken by two different examiners was 0.711 (95%CI: 0.099, 0.907) for the first photograph, 0.703 (95% CI: 0.076, 0.905) for the second one and 0.892 (95%CI: 0.663, 0.965) for the third one in healthy subject. In subject with pathology it was 0.994 (95% CI: 0.982, 0.998), 0.998 (95% CI: 0.993, 0.999) and 0.996 (95% CI: 0.989, 0.999) respectively. In the total sample it was 0.997 (95%CI: 0.992, 0.998), 0.998 (95%CI: 0.995, 0.999) and 0.998 (95%CI: 0.995, 0.999) respectively.&#xd;
Conclusions: Smartphone photographic measurements of upper limbs abduction angle through mRom app are reliable compared to inertial sensors. This method provides a convenient and precise tool in assessment of shoulder motion.</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
      <subfield code="a">http://hdl.handle.net/10630/8251</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Fisioterapia - Innovaciones tecnológicas</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2="0" ind1="0" tag="245">
      <subfield code="a">Validity and reliability of range of motion measured on smartphone (mROM)</subfield>
   </datafield>
</record>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>