Table 4.
Results reliability: data presented as taken from the Result section of the article
| Study | Intra-observer | Inter-observer |
|---|---|---|
| Srinivasalu et al. [6] | ||
| D2L | ICC: ≥0.970 | ICC: 0.986 |
| Corona et al. [7] | ||
| D2L | ICC: 0.99 | ICC: 0.99 |
| Jones et al. [8] | ||
| D2L | Not presented | r = 0.975 |
| M | Not presented | Not presented |
| Tanure et al. [9] | ||
| D2L | ICC: ≥0.95 | ICC: ≥0.96 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.91–0.99 | Range 95 % CI: 0.92–0.97 | |
| M | ICC: ≥0.94 | ICC: ≥0.95 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.89–0.98 | Range 95 % CI: 0.91–0.97 | |
| Shea et al. [10] | ||
| D2L | Overall SC: 0.97; (range 0.96–0.98) | No analysis of inter-observer reliability |
| M | Overall SC: 0.96; (range 0.93–0.98) | |
| Cheung et al. [11] | ||
| D6L | No analysis of reliability | No analysis of reliability |
| D2L | ||
| Chockalingam et al. [12] | ||
| DH | r = 0.985 | r = 0.988 |
| M | Not presented | r = 0.781 |
| Allen et al. [13] | ||
| A | Range ICC: ≥0.91 | Range ICC: ≥0.89 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.84–0.98 | Range 95 % CI: 0.76–0.97 | |
| D2L | Range ICC: ≥0.92 | Range ICC: ≥0.83 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.85–0.97 | Range 95 % CI: 0.63–0.98 | |
| M | Range ICC: ≥0.95 | Range ICC: ≥0.93 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.90–0.98 | Range 95 % CI: 0.83–0.98 | |
| Zhang et al. [14] | ||
| A | Range ICC: 0.944 | ICC: 0.985 |
| Range 95 % CI: 0.990–0.966 | Range 95 % CI: 0.983–0.987 | |
| D4L | ICC: 0.962 | ICC: 0.929 |
| Shaw et al. [15] | ||
| S | No analysis of reliability | No analysis of reliability |
| M | ||
| Qiao et al. [16] | ||
| S | Overall ICC: 0.985; (range 0.981–0.988) | ICC: 0.956; (range 0.949–0.982) |
| M | Overall ICC: 0.955; (range 0.942–0.965) | ICC: 0.955; (range 0.942–0.965) |
CI confidence interval, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, r correlation coefficient, SC stability coefficient, A automatic, D2,4,6L digital 2,4,6 landmarks, DH digital horizontal, M manual, S smartphone