ArticlePloS one2019
The upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment: Description, reliability, normative values and criterion validity.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- International norms for adult handgrip strength: A systematic review of data on 2.4 million adults aged 20 to 100+ years from 69 countries and regions.Journal of sport and health science · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying motor learning deficits in neurological conditions: a critical analysis of a perennial problem.Experimental brain research · 2026Review
- Behavioral and psychophysical characterization of proprioceptive impairment in healthy aging: a hyper-illusory experience of movement.npj aging · 2026Article
- Closed-loop rehabilitation of upper-limb dyskinesia after stroke: from natural motion to neuronal microfluidics.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Parkinson's disease functional movement battery a comprehensive test set to evaluate of motor abilities in persons with Parkinson's disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of characteristics of bimanual coordinated movements in older adults with frailty, pre-frailty, and robust health.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Hand Strength and Function in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Implications for Clinical Trials.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2024Article
- Age- and sex-related changes in motor functions: a comprehensive assessment and component analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
- Spanish consensus of occupational therapists on upper limb assessment tools in stroke.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2023Article
- Use of a physiological profile to document upper limb motor impairment in ageing and in neurological conditions.The Journal of physiology · 2023Review
- Patient-Reported Outcomes and Provocative Testing in Peripheral Nerve Injury and Recovery.Journal of brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injury · 2023Review
- Age-related change in muscle strength, muscle mass, and fat mass between the dominant and non-dominant upper limbs.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Sensorimotor performance after high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary somatosensory or motor cortices in men versus women.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical Assessment of Pain and Sensory Function in Peripheral Nerve Injury and Recovery: A Systematic Review of Literature.Archives of plastic surgery · 2022Article
- Assessment of Motor Function in Peripheral Nerve Injury and Recovery.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Ladder Use in Older People: Type, Frequency, Tasks and Predictors of Risk Behaviours.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Judgements of hand location and hand spacing show minimal proprioceptive drift.Experimental brain research · 2020Article
- Reference value for the six-minute peg board and ring test. A cross sectional study.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A progressive decline in upper limb function is associated with ageing and disease. In this cross-sectional study we assessed the performance of 367 healthy individuals aged of 20 to 95 years across a battery of upper limb clinical tests, which we have termed the upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA). The upper limb PPA was designed to quantify the performance of the multiple physiological domains important for adequate function in the upper extremities. Included are tests of muscle strength, unilateral movement and dexterity, position sense, skin sensation, bimanual coordination, arm stability, along with a functional task. We report age and gender normative values for each test. Test-retest reliability ranged from good to excellent in all tests (intra-class correlation coefficients from 0.65 to 0.98) with the exception of position sense (0.31). Ten of the thirteen tests revealed differences in performance between males and females, twelve showed a decline in performance with increasing age, and eight discriminated between older people with and without upper limb functional impairment. Furthermore, most tests showed good external validity with respect to age, an upper limb functional test and self-reported function. This profiling approach provides a reference range for clinical groups with upper limb sensory and motor impairments and may assist in identifying undiagnosed deficits in the general population. Furthermore, the tests are sufficiently reliable to detect motor impairments in people with compromised upper limb function and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.
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.