ArticleJournal of athletic training2018
Reliability and Validity of a 1-Person Technique to Measure Humeral Torsion Using Ultrasound.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-assisted measurement of humeral version: a radiation-sparing alternative to whole-humerus computed tomography.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
- A new circle method for measuring humeral torsion on MRI-scans less sensitive to Hill-Sachs lesions.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- Ultrasonographic Measurement of Torsional Side Difference in Proximal Humerus Fractures and Humeral Shaft Fractures: Theoretical Background with Technical Notes for Clinical Implementation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextKnowledge of the bilateral difference in humeral torsion (HT) enables clinicians to implement appropriate interventions for soft tissue restrictions of the shoulder to restore rotational motion and reduce injury risk. Whereas the current ultrasound method for measuring HT requires 2 assessors, a more efficient 1-person technique (1PT) may be of value.
objectiveTo determine if a 1PT is a reliable and valid alternative to the established 2-person technique (2PT) for indirectly measuring HT using ultrasound.
designDescriptive laboratory study.
settingBiomechanics laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA convenience sample of 16 volunteers (7 men, 9 women; age = 26.9 ± 6.8 years, height = 172.2 ± 10.7 cm, mass = 80.0 ± 13.3 kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We collected the HT data using both the 1PT and 2PT from a total of 30 upper extremities (16 left, 14 right). Within-session intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC [3,1]) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were assessed for both techniques. Simple linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis were used to examine the validity of the 1PT when compared with the established 2PT.
resultsThe 1PT (ICC [3,1] = 0.992, SEM = 0.8°) and 2PT (ICC [3,1] = 0.979, SEM = 1.1°) demonstrated excellent within-session intrarater reliability. A strong linear relationship was demonstrated between the HT measurements collected with both techniques ( r = 0.963, r
conclusionsThe 1PT for measuring HT using ultrasound was a reliable and valid alternative to the 2PT. By reducing the number of testers involved, the 1PT may provide clinicians with a more efficient and practical means of obtaining these valuable clinical data.
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.