Measuring joint range of motion is an important skill for many allied health professionals. While the Universal Goniometer is the most commonly utilised clinical tool for measuring joint range of motion, the evolution of smartphone technology and applications (apps) provides the clinician with more measurement options. However, the reliability and validity of these smartphones and apps is still somewhat uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the intra- and inter-rater reliability and validity of smartphones and apps to measure joint range of motion. Eligible studies were published in English peer-reviewed journals with full text available, involving the assessment of reliability and/or validity of a non-videographic smartphone app to measure joint range of motion in participants >18 years old. An electronic search using PubMed, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTSDiscus was performed. The risk of bias was assessed using a standardised appraisal tool. Twenty-three of the eligible 25 studies exceeded the minimum 60% score to be classified as a low risk of bias, although 3 of the 13 criteria were not achieved in >50% of the studies. Most of the studies demonstrated adequate intra-rater or inter-rater reliability and/or validity for >50% of the range of motion tests across all joints assessed. However, this level of evidence appeared weaker for absolute (e.g. mean difference ± limit of agreement, minimal detectable change) than relative (e.g. intraclass correlation, correlation) measures; and for spinal rotation than spinal extension, flexion and lateral flexion. Our results provide clinicians with sufficient evidence to support the use of smartphones and apps in place of goniometers to measure joint motion. Future research should address some methodological limitations of the literature, especially including the inclusion of absolute and not just relative reliability and validity statistics.

Physical activity (PA) is a component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, life-long engagement in PA is required to maintain benefits gained. Wearable PA monitoring devices (WPAM) are thought to increase PA. There appear to be no reviews which investigate the effect of WPAM in cardiac populations. We firstly aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials within the cardiac population that investigated the effect WPAM had through the maintenance phase of CR. We specifically examined the effect on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), amount and intensity of daily PA, and sedentary time. Secondly, we aimed to collate outcome measures reported, reasons for drop out, adverse events, and psychological impact from utilising a WPAM. A systematic search (up to January 2019) of relevant databases was completed, followed by a narrative synthesis, meta-analysis and qualitative analysis. Nine studies involving 1,352 participants were included. CRF was improved to a greater extent in participants using WPAM with exercise prescription or advice compared with controls (MD 1.65 mL/kg/min;95% confidence interval [CI; 0.64–2.66]; p = 0.001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant between group difference in six-minute walk test distance. In 70% of studies, step count was greater in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however the overall effect was not significant (SMD 0.45;95% [CI; − 0.17-1.07] p = 0.15; I2 = 81%). A sensitivity analysis resulted in significantly greater step counts in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice and reduced the heterogeneity from 81 to 0% (SMD 0.78;95% [CI;0.54–1.02]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Three out of four studies reporting on intensity, found significantly increased time spent in moderate and moderate-vigorous intensity PA. No difference between groups was found for sedentary time. Three of six studies reported improved psychological benefits. No cardiac adverse events related to physical activity were reported and 62% of non-cardiac adverse events were primarily musculoskeletal injuries. Reasons for dropping out included medical conditions, lack of motivation, loss of interest, and technical difficulties. Our meta-analysis showed WPAM with exercise prescription or advice are superior to no device in improving CRF in the maintenance phase of CR and no cardiac adverse events were reported with WPAM use. Our qualitative analysis showed evidence in favour of WPAM with exercise prescription or advice for both CRF and step count. WPAM with exercise prescription or advice did not change sedentary time. Psychological health and exercise intensity may potentially be enhanced by WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however further research would strengthen this conclusion. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019106591.

Background: There are an estimated 37 million surfers worldwide, with 2.5 million recreational surfers in Australia. The recreational activity and sport of surfing has grown dramatically since the 1960s, but scientific research has been poorly mirrored in comparison with most other mainstream sports. Purpose: To identify the incidence, severity, location, type, and mechanism of acute injuries in recreational and competitive surfers over a 12-month period. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: An online survey using an open-source survey application was utilized. The survey consisted of 2 primary sections: Section 1 included demographic information and participation levels (age, height, weight, hours surfed, competitive level); section 2 incorporated injury type, mechanism, severity, and injury management. Results: A total of 1348 participants (91.3% males; 43.1% competitive surfers) were included in data analysis. A total of 512 acute injuries were classified as major, providing an incidence proportion of 0.38 (CI, 0.35-0.41) acute injuries per year. The incidence rate was calculated to be 1.79 (CI, 1.67-1.92) major injuries per 1000 hours of surfing. The shoulder, ankle, and head/face regions had the highest frequencies of acute injury, representing 16.4%, 14.6%, and 13.3%, respectively. Injuries were predominantly of muscular, joint, and skin origin, representing 30.3%, 27.7%, and 18.9%, respectively. Skin injuries were primarily a result of direct trauma, while joint and muscular injuries were mainly a result of maneuvers performed and repetitive actions. Key risk factors that increased the incidence of sustaining an acute injury included competitive status, hours surfed (>6.5 hours/week), and the ability to perform aerial maneuvers. The incidence proportion for surfers completing aerial maneuvers was calculated to be 0.48 (CI, 0.39-0.58) major injuries per year, this being the highest incidence proportion irrespective of competitive status. Conclusion: This is the largest surfing-specific survey that included both recreational and competitive surfers conducted in Australia to date. The shoulder, ankle, head, and face were identified as the key regions where acute injuries occur in surfers. This research may aid in reducing the occurrence of injury through musculoskeletal screening in these key injury-prone regions and through the use of sport-specific strength training and conditioning.

Background: The recent trends of technological innovation and widescale digitization as potential solutions to challenges in health care, sports, and emergency service operations have led to the conception of smart textile technology. In health care, these smart textile systems present the potential to aid preventative medicine and early diagnosis through continuous, noninvasive tracking of physical and mental health while promoting proactive involvement of patients in their medical management. In areas such as sports and emergency response, the potential to provide comprehensive and simultaneous physiological insights across multiple body systems is promising. However, it is currently unclear what type of evidence exists surrounding the use of smart textiles for the monitoring of physiological outcome measures across different settings. Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically survey the existing body of scientific literature surrounding smart textiles in their most prevalent form, the smart shirt, for monitoring physiological outcome measures. Methods: A total of 5 electronic bibliographic databases were systematically searched (Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and SPORTDiscus). Publications from the inception of the database to June 24, 2019 were reviewed. Nonindexed literature relevant to this review was also systematically searched. The results were then collated, summarized, and reported. Results: Following the removal of duplicates, 7871 citations were identified. On the basis of title and abstract screening, 7632 citations were excluded, whereas 239 were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 101 citations were included in the final analysis. Included studies were categorized into four themes: (1) prototype design, (2) validation, (3) observational, and (4) reviews. Among the 101 analyzed studies, prototype design was the most prevalent theme (50/101, 49.5%), followed by validation (29/101, 28.7%), observational studies (21/101, 20.8%), and reviews (1/101, 0.1%). Presented prototype designs ranged from those capable of monitoring one physiological metric to those capable of monitoring several simultaneously. In 29 validation studies, 16 distinct smart shirts were validated against reference technology under various conditions and work rates, including rest, submaximal exercise, and maximal exercise. The identified observational studies used smart shirts in clinical, healthy, and occupational populations for aims such as early diagnosis and stress detection. One scoping review was identified, investigating the use of smart shirts for electrocardiograph signal monitoring in cardiac patients. Conclusions: Although smart shirts have been found to be valid and reliable in the monitoring of specific physiological metrics, results were variable for others, demonstrating the need for further systematic validation. Analysis of the results has also demonstrated gaps in knowledge, such as a considerable lag of validation and observational studies in comparison with prototype design and limited investigation using smart shirts in pediatric, elite sports, and emergency service populations.

Background: Several water-based sports (swimming, surfing and stand up paddle boarding) require adequate thoracic mobility (specifically rotation) in order to perform the appropriate activity requirements. The measurement of thoracic spine rotation is problematic for clinicians due to a lack of convenient and reliable measurement techniques. More recently, smartphones have been used to quantify movement in various joints in the body; however, there appears to be a paucity of research using smartphones to assess thoracic spine movement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the reliability (intra and inter rater) and validity of the iPhone^® app (Compass) when assessing thoracic spine rotation ROM in healthy individuals. Methods: A total of thirty participants were recruited for this study. Thoracic spine rotation ROM was measured using both the current clinical gold standard, a universal goniometer (UG) and the Smart Phone Compass app. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was determined with a Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Validation of the Compass app in comparison to the UG was measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and levels of agreement were identified with Bland–Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement. Results: Both the UG and Compass app measurements both had excellent reproducibility for intra-rater (ICC 0.94–0.98) and inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.72–0.89). However, the Compass app measurements had higher intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96 − 0.98; 95% CI [0.93–0.99]; vs. ICC = 0.94 − 0.98; 95% CI [0.88–0.99]) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 − 0.89; 95% CI [0.74–0.95] vs. ICC = 0.72 − 0.82; 95% CI [0.21–0.94]). A strong and significant correlation was found between the UG and the Compass app, demonstrating good concurrent validity (r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Levels of agreement between the two devices were 24.8° (LoA –9.5°, +15.3°). The UG was found to consistently measure higher values than the compass app (mean difference 2.8°, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This study reveals that the iPhone^® app (Compass) is a reliable tool for measuring thoracic spine rotation which produces greater reproducibility of measurements both within and between raters than a UG. As a significant positive correlation exists between the Compass app and UG, this supports the use of either device in clinical practice as a reliable and valid tool to measure thoracic rotation. Considering the levels of agreement are clinically unacceptable, the devices should not be used interchangeably for initial and follow up measurements.

Prospective and retrospective studies have examined traumatic injuries within competitive and recreational surfers worldwide using online surveys and health care facility (HCF; e.g., hospital, emergency department, medical record) data. However, few studies have provided a synthesis of all available literature. The purpose of this study was to obtain, critique and synthesise all literature specific to acute surfing injuries, and evaluate differences in injury type, mechanism and location between HCF and survey data. A systematic literature review design was used to identify relevant articles from three major databases. Peer-reviewed epidemiological studies of musculoskeletal surfing injuries were included. A modified AXIS tool was used for critical appraisal, and objective data was extracted and synthesized by lead researchers. Overall frequencies for injury location, type and mechanism were calculated from raw injury data. A total of 19 cross-sectional articles of fair to good quality (Modified AXIS 54.2–83.3%) were included in this study; 17 were National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) level III-2 (retrospective) and two were level II (prospective). Articles examined competitive, recreational and combined populations. Injury data from Australia, Brazil, UK, USA, Portugal, Japan, Norway, and worldwide were represented. Skin (46.0%; HCF 50.1%, survey 43.8%) and being struck by own surfboard (38.6%; HCF 73.4%, survey 36.7%) were the most common injury type and mechanism. Head, face and neck injuries were most common in HCF (43.1%) versus lower limb injuries (36.4%) in survey data. Incidence proportion was highest in aerialists (0.48). Incidence rate (number of injuries per 1000 h) ranged from 0.74 in Australian surfers (Melbourne) to 6.6 in international contest surfers from medical record data. This review highlights the prevalence of skin, board-related, head, face and neck, and lower limb surfing injuries across available literature. Proposed use of protective equipment and foam-based surfboards in dangerous or crowded surf locations may reduce injury risk.