ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2018
Golf Swing Rotational Velocity: The Essential Follow-Through.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel golf prosthesis for bilateral upper limb loss: design, fabrication, and biomechanical evaluation.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Warm-Up Program for Adolescent Golfers Reduces Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.Translational sports medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of Inertial Measurement Units for Analyzing Golf Swing Rotational Biomechanics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Golf Swing Biomechanics: A Systematic Review and Methodological Recommendations for Kinematics.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The swing performance Index: Developing a single-score index of golf swing rotational biomechanics quantified with 3D kinematics.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Acute Effects of Self-Selected Music Intervention on Golf Performance and Anxiety Level in Collegiate Golfers: A Crossover Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if shoulder and pelvic angular velocities differ at impact or peak magnitude between professional and amateur golfers. Golf swing rotational biomechanics are a key determinant of power generation, driving distance, and injury prevention. We hypothesize that shoulder and pelvic angular velocities would be highly consistent in professionals.
methodsRotational velocities of the upper-torso and pelvis throughout the golf swing and in relation to phases of the golf swing were examined in 11 professionals and compared to 5 amateurs using three-dimensional motion analysis.
resultsPeak rotational velocities of professionals were highly consistent, demonstrating low variability (coefficient of variation [COV]), particularly upper-torso rotational velocity (COV=0.086) and pelvic rotational velocity (COV=0.079) during down swing. Peak upper-torso rotational velocity and peak X-prime, the relative rotational velocity of uppertorso versus pelvis, occurred after impact in follow-through, were reduced in amateurs compared to professionals (p=0.005 and p=0.005, respectively) and differentiated professionals from most (4/5) amateurs. In contrast, peak pelvic rotational velocity occurred in down swing. Pelvic velocity at impact was reduced in amateurs compared to professionals (p=0.019) and differentiated professionals from most (4/5) amateurs.
conclusionGolf swing rotational velocity of professionals was consistent in pattern and magnitude, offering benchmarks for amateurs. Understanding golf swing rotational biomechanics can guide swing modifications to help optimize performance and prevent injury.
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.