ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2021
The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion.
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. 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.
- The Use of a Handheld Ultrasound Device to Measure Humeral Retrotorsion in Baseball and Softball Athletes: A Validation Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRange of motion (ROM) impairments of the overhead athletes' shoulder are commonly addressed through mobility-based treatments, however, adaptations from humeral torsion (HT) are not amenable to such interventions. A clinical measurement to quantify HT has been proposed, however, the validity is not conclusive. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to determine the intrarater reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) of the biceps forearm angle (BFA) measurement. The secondary aim of this study is to investigate the convergent validity of the BFA compared to diagnostic ultrasound. STUDY
designCross Sectional Reliability and Validity Study.
methodsHT measurements, utilizing diagnostic ultrasound, were compared to BFA in 74 shoulders (37 subjects) over two sessions. Each measurement was performed three times and a third investigator recorded measures to ensure blinding. Reliability was investigated using utilizing an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k).
resultsIntrarater reliability values were 0.923 and 0.849 for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA methods respectively. Convergent validity was
conclusionThe BFA is a reliable clinical method for quantifying HT, however, demonstrates moderate to poor convergent validity when compared to diagnostic ultrasound. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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.