ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2021
Comparison of OnBaseU Tests with Biomechanical Motion Analysis in Youth Baseball Pitchers.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe OnBaseU screen was developed to evaluate a baseball pitcher's ability to perform movement patterns key to pitching. However, due to lack of validation, it is unclear what application is ideal for this screen. PURPOSE: To compare four OnBaseU tests to relevant pitching mechanics measured using 3D motion capture to evaluate if the OnBaseU screen can be used to assess pitching mechanics. The secondary purpose was to compare OnBaseU and 3D motion capture seated trunk rotation test results to determine the validity of the OnBaseU test.
methodsOnBaseU screening and 3D motion capture pitching evaluations were completed for 103 adolescent pitchers (age = 15.2 ± 1.29 years; height = 1.80 ± 0.0866 m; weight = 76.2 ± 13.8 kg). A motion capture seated trunk rotation test was also conducted on 80 of the 103 youth players (age = 15.2 ± 1.32 years; height = 1.80 ± 0.0889 m; weight = 75.7 ± 13.9 kg).
resultsStride length and OnBaseU side step walkout test data were moderately correlated, and all other comparisons were not correlated or were minorly correlated. No significant differences were found between kinematics from players who obtained different OnBaseU scores, except for stride lengths during pitching of players who scored a 1 or 3 on the OnBaseU side step walkout test (p<0.01). Further, OnBaseU and motion capture seated trunk rotation tests were not correlated (r = 0.003) and not found to be statistically associated (p = 0.83).
conclusionResults from this study indicate that the OnBaseU clinical assessment screen may not have use in assessing pitching mechanics and that visual grading criteria used in the OnBaseU seated trunk rotation test may not be accurate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.