Back

Assessing Ankle Range of Motion with Wearable Technology: A Comparative Accuracy and Reliability Study

Hu, B.; Warsif, s.; Atout, M.; Jabri, A.; Mahmoud, H.; Mahmoud, M.; Patel, d.; Raza, F.; Chomiak, T.

2025-05-06 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2025.05.02.25326892 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAccurate measurement of ankle range of motion (ROM) is essential for diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal conditions, optimizing athletic performance, and managing neurological disorders such as Parkinsons disease. This study evaluates the novel Ambulosono device, a sensor-based tool, against the traditional goniometer for assessing Ankle ROM in healthy participants. MethodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on 54 healthy participants aged 15 to 24 years. Ankle ROM was measured using the goniometer, placed on the lateral malleolus, and the Ambulosono device, secured on the dorsum of the foot. Participants performed maximal dorsiflexion and plantarflexion with knees extended, and five measurements were taken per device on both feet in randomized order. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Bland-Altman plots, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) to assess agreement and reliability. ResultsMean goniometer ROM was 58.44{degrees} (SD=5.54) versus Ambulosonos 56.80{degrees} (SD=3.88). No significant differences emerged between devices, foot sides, or gender. Bland-Altman analysis indicated agreement without P proportional bias. Reliability was excellent (Cronbachs alpha=0.983, ICC=0.983). ConclusionThe Ambulosono device is a robust tool that offers a reliable alternative to traditional goniometry, with advantages such as real-time feedback and reduced inter-rater variability. Its potential applications extend beyond clinical and athletic settings to include neurological rehabilitation and remote patient monitoring. Further research is warranted to validate its efficacy across diverse populations and real-world scenarios.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.