ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2023
Self-assessment of range of motion in patients undergoing surgery for a unilateral shoulder condition.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Condition Changes Before and After the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Adolescent Athletes and Development of a Non-Contact Medical Checkup Application.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Does biceps tenodesis screw with forked eyelet decrease the risk of Popeye deformity when compared to traditional closed eyelet screws?Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025Article
- The Future of Clinical Active Shoulder Range of Motion Assessment, Best Practice, and Its Challenges: Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the agreement of patient-assessed and researcher/physician-assessed measurements of the difference in range of motion between the unaffected and affected shoulders in 55 patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery for a unilateral shoulder condition.
methodsThe investigation included 55 patients (17 women and 38 men; median age=53 years; range=26-74) with a symptomatic unilateral shoulder condition and a surgically treatable diagnosis. Images of a model/researcher performing active shoulder abduction, flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation were created. Each image was paired with a degree diagram or a level system (for internal rotation) on the back for the patient to accurately self-evaluate and record. Each patient was instructed to attentively examine the figures and perform the movements with the same posture as depicted. On the day of surgery, prior to the procedure, 2 independent researchers who were not involved in the patient's care used a standard goniometer to assess the same active movements that the patient had previously self-assessed. For agreement analyses, the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were calculated for continuous data (abduction, flexion, and external rotation), and Cohen's weighted kappa was calculated for ordinal categorical data (internal rotation).
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient for abduction, flexion, and external rotation was 0.93 (excellent) 95% CI (0.87, 0.96), 0.89 (good) 95% CI (0.81, 0.94), and 0.72 (moderate) 95% CI (0.52, 0.84), respectively. Cohen's kappa for internal rotation (measured as reaching levels on the back) was 0.63 (moderate).
conclusionWe believe that patient-assessed measurements of abduction (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.93) and flexion (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.89) can be used as a valid substitute (for measurements by a clinician or researcher). Patient-assessed measurements for external rotation (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.72) and internal rotation (kappa 0.63) are in moderate agreement and should be used more cautiously as substitutes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic Study.
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.