ArticleClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2020
Effects of elbow immobilization on upper extremity activity.
Article in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upper extremity asymmetry due to nerve injuries or central neurologic conditions: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt has been dogma that handedness greatly impacts daily activities. Interruptions in the ability to utilize the dominant arm due to neuromusculoskeletal injuries could negatively impact performance of activities of daily living. Daily activity can be measured using activity monitors. This study aimed to examine how arm dominance impacts function by immobilizing the arms of healthy individuals.
methodsTen individuals wore four upper extremity activity monitors for three days-one day without immobilization, one day with their dominant arm immobilized, and one day with their non-dominant arm immobilized. Triaxial acceleration data was used to calculate average daily activity and an asymmetry index. Between-condition differences were examined.
findingsDuring dominant arm immobilization, the dominant forearm had significantly less average daily activity when compared to the no immobilization day (p = .0001) and the non-dominant immobilized day (p < .0001). A similar trend was observed at the non-dominant forearm when the non-dominant arm was immobilized. Immobilization of an arm increased asymmetry index and reliance on the non-immobilized arm. Significant differences in asymmetry index were not observed between the two casted conditions.
interpretationWhen an upper extremity was casted, immobilized forearm and upper arm average daily activity was comparable. Dominance did not have an effect on asymmetry index. Immobilization affected asymmetry index compared to no immobilization. This study has demonstrated that regardless of arm immobilized, there will be a reliance on the contralateral limb about twice as much as the immobilized limb. This could prove problematic if the contralateral limb is restricted or injured, limiting independent.
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.