Applications of Traditional and Digital Anthropometric Measures in Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.

Anthropometry offers noninvasive measurements of body size, proportions, and composition that can inform musculoskeletal assessment and rehabilitation. Traditional anthropometric measures continue to be widely used owing to their accessibility, whereas digital technologies provide further approaches for objective body and movement assessment. However, evidence on the applications and measurement properties of traditional and digital anthropometric measures across orthopaedic and rehabilitation settings remains inconsistent. This systematic review assessed the measurement methods, clinical applications, and reported implications of traditional and digital anthropometric measures in orthopaedic assessment and rehabilitation. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Statement. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2017 and July 2026, with the final search performed in July 2026. English-language full-text studies involving human participants that evaluated anthropometric measures in orthopaedic, musculoskeletal, or rehabilitation settings were included. Cross-sectional, observational, cohort, randomized controlled, diagnostic, validation, and reliability studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias and methodological quality were evaluated using tools appropriate to each study design, including Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) for measurement-validation studies, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2 ​​​​​​) for diagnostic-accuracy studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2 (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials, and the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Owing to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria: six diagnostic/validation studies, eight analytical cross-sectional studies, and four randomized controlled trials. Traditional and digital anthropometric methods were applied for body measurement, screening, risk stratification, preoperative planning, and rehabilitation assessment and monitoring. Validation studies generally reported good agreement or reliability, whereas cross-sectional studies identified associations with disease severity, bone health, low back pain, graft dimensions, and postural characteristics. Randomized controlled trials assessed anthropometric and related measures in rehabilitation for low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and total knee arthroplasty. The risk-of-bias assessment indicated a generally low risk, although two randomized controlled trials raised some concerns regarding selection of the reported result. Traditional and digital anthropometric measures can complement orthopaedic assessment and rehabilitation planning when selected, measured, and interpreted according to standardized protocols. However, heterogeneity across studies and limited evidence of their direct effects on patient outcomes highlight the need for further standardized, prospective research.