ArticleShoulder & elbow2024
Upper limb functional testing in athletes: A Delphi study.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of phase and dominance on ground reaction forces and upper extremity muscle activity during the modified-Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Challenges and Opportunities for Injury Reduction and Performance Development in Elite Youth Team Sport Schools: A Practice-Based Opinion.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Upper limb functional testing: does age, gender, and sport influence performance?JSES international · 2024Article
- Preseason shoulder screening in volleyball players: is there any change during season?JSES international · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Functional testing has recently become more and more popular to assess athletes, both for injury prevention, as well as in an objective of performance. However, the relationship between the results of these tests and performances (or injuries) or their interpretation remains unclear. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the usefulness, the characteristics, and the interpretation of the most frequently used upper-limb functional test. Methods: Twenty-two experts with an excellent knowledge of upper limb functional tests and an expertise in sports medicine and/or sports training of at least 5 years were recruited. They answered to qualitative and quantitative questions about functional testing trough structured questionnaires (online). Results: Four rounds were needed to reach a consensus about the usefulness as well as the characteristics of each test. Different sports-specific batteries of tests were also suggested by the experts and reached consensus. However, concerning the interpretation of the test, a consensus was only found for half of the tests considered. Conclusion: The current study summarizes the characteristics and the usefulness of the most popular upper-limb functional tests. However, the interpretation of some tests will have to be further explored since no consensus was found for them.
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.