ArticlePloS one2018
Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of movement control tests for the neck, shoulder, thoracic, lumbar, and hip regions in military personnel.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Reliability of the Microsoft Kinect and Ambulatory Sensor-Based Motion Tracking Devices to Measure Shoulder Range-of-Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Reliability of Diagnostic Tests for Movement System Impairment-based Categories of Mechanical Neck Pain.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Article
- Test-Retest Reliability and Translation of the Musculoskeletal Screening Protocol Questionnaire Used in the Swedish Armed Forces.Military medicine · 2023Article
- Cervico-thoracic pain and associated impairments in air force personnel: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strategies are needed to mitigate the high rates and related risks of musculoskeletal complaints and injuries (MSCI) in the military aviator community. Previous work on Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF) soldiers have shown that proper screening methods have been successful in reducing early discharge from military training. Research has pointed at the importance of optimal spinal movement control in military aviators. The aim of this work was to investigate the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of a battery of clinical tests for evaluating movement control in the neck, shoulders, thoracic, lumbar, and hip regions in a population of SwAF military personnel. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of 15 movement control tests were assessed by crude and prevalence-adjusted kappa coefficient. The study included 37 (inter-rater) and 45 (test-retest) SwAF personnel and was performed with two physiotherapists simultaneously observing and rating the movements on the first occasion and repeated with one physiotherapist on the second occasion. For inter-rater reliability, the kappa coefficient ranged from .19 to .95. Seven tests showed substantial to almost perfect agreement (kappa > .60). With the adjusted kappa, three more tests reached the level of substantial agreement. The corresponding values for test-retest reliability ranged from .26 to .65. Substantial agreement was attained for two tests, three with adjusted kappa. The following tests can reliably be used when screening for biomechanically less advantageous movement patters in military aviators: Shoulder flexion, and rotation, Neck flexion in sitting and supine, Neck extension and rotation in sitting, Pelvic tilt, Forward lean and Single and Double knee extension tests. Grading criteria for tests in supine and quadruped positions need to be further elaborated.
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.