ReviewShoulder & elbow2018
Normative values of isometric elbow strength in healthy adults: a systematic review.
Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Multi-Domain Physical Fitness Dataset of Central European Adults: Strength, Flexibility, Stability, and Aerobic Capacity.Scientific data · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study Between Denervation and Extensor Release for Management of Resistant Tennis Elbow.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Normative values for internal and external glenohumeral rotation strength in rugby players: A systematic review with meta-analysis.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Review
- Influence of biceps-triceps ratio on golf swing performance.PloS one · 2024Article
- Anterior Versus Posterior Surgical Approaches to Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fracture.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2024Article
- Strength Asymmetries Are Muscle-Specific and Metric-Dependent.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment: Description, reliability, normative values and criterion validity.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-traumatic deformities such as biceps tendon rupture or (peri-)articular fractures of the elbow are often related to a decrease in muscle strength. Postoperative evaluation of these deformities requires normative values of elbow strength. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine these normative values of isometric elbow strength in healthy adults resulting from studies evaluating this strength (i.e. flexion, extension, pronation and supination strength).
methodsThe databases of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Sciences were searched and screened for studies involving the isometric elbow strength as measured in asymptomatic volunteers. The quality of the studies was assessed and studies of low quality were excluded.
resultsNineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were of sufficiently high quality to be included in the present review. In these studies, elbow strength was measured in a total of 1880 healthy volunteers. The experimental set-up and devices used to measure elbow strength varied between studies. Using some assumptions, a normative values table was assembled.
conclusionsLarge standard deviations of normative values in combination with different measurement devices used, as well as the different measurement positions of the subjects, demonstrated that there is no consensus about measuring the isometric elbow strength and therefore the normative values have to be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.