ArticleShoulder & elbow2024
Reliability of two devices for shoulder strength assessment: Wii Fit Balance Board and hand-held dynamometer.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shoulder angle effects on neuromuscular activation and rapid force production: sEMG time-frequency and force-time analyses.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Investigation of the intra and inter-day reliability of the athletic shoulder test using the wii balance board in volleyball players.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and agreement between two devices - Wii Fit Balance Board (WBB) versus Hand-Held Dynamometer (HHD) to measure isometric strength during the athletic shoulder (ASH) test in healthy amateur rugby players. Methods: Fifteen males (23.73 ± 2.8 years) completed two testing sessions. Maximal isometric contractions using the dominant arm (D) and non-dominant arm (ND) against a WBB and HHD were assessed at three angles of abduction (180°, 'I'; 135°, 'Y' and 90°, 'T'), in a prone lying position. Results: The results indicate a very large correlation between the HHD and the WBB. WBB provides acceptable reliability at I-Test D (CV = 9.97%, ICC = 0.88) and HHD in the I-Test D (CV = 8.90%, ICC = 0.94), I-Test ND (CV = 8.60%, ICC = 0.95) in peak strength values. The HHD is most reliable in D ASH I-Y-T (CV = 10.94%) and WBB (CV = 11.05%). In the ND ASH I-Y-T test, the HHD is the most reliable (CV = 12.5%) compared to the WBB (CV = 14.43%). Conclusions: These results suggest that WBB is a reliable device to assess strength in the ASH test with a very large correlation with the HHD. WBB and HHD are two affordable devices to assess isometric shoulder strength.
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.