ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2024
Reliability and Validity of Visual Estimation in Determining Thorax Rotation Mobility using the Quadruped Lumbar-Locked Position.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2024. 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.
- Establishing Normative Values and Clinician Assessment Accuracy for the Single Leg Bridge Endurance Test.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thoracic rotation mobility is crucial for athletes in rotational sports such as baseball, golf, and swimming to maintain the proper biomechanics associated with the sport. Accurate differentiation between normal mobility and active and passive physiological deficits in the thoracic region is critical for identifying the need for intervention to the thorax. Purpose: To establish the reliability and discriminant validity of visual estimation of thorax rotation range of motion across clinicians of differing experience levels in determining normal mobility and active or passive physiological deficits when utilizing the quadruped lumbar-locked position. Study Design: Cross-sectional. Methods: Thirty-eight subjects (21 female, 17 male) with a mean age of 27 years ± 6.67 were assessed with the quadruped lumbar-locked thorax rotation test by three examiners with various clinical experience in real-time and again one week later. Bilateral active and passive lumbar-locked thorax rotation mobility was assessed by all raters and categorized as "Unrestricted" (≥50°) or "Restricted" (<50°) while a research assistant simultaneously measured the motion with a digital inclinometer. All raters were blinded to the results. All results were analyzed for intra-rater reliability and agreement. Results: Test-retest intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.55-0.72 and percent absolute agreement ranged from 0.82-0.89. Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.45-0.59 while percent absolute agreement between raters ranged from 0.74-0.84. There was a significant difference in range of motion between "Unrestricted" and "Restricted" categories for both active (Unrestricted=54.6-58.9; Restricted=40.4-44.4; p<0.001) and passive motion (Unrestricted=61.3-63.5; Restricted=39.2-39.7; p<0.001). The only interaction effect was for passive left rotation [Rater A Restricted x ® =34.3(30.4-38.2); Rater C Restricted (x ) ®=43.8(41.3-46.4); p=.000]. Conclusion: The quadruped lumbar-locked thorax rotation test demonstrates moderate to substantial test-retest intra-rater and inter-rater reliability regardless of clinical experience. The quadruped lumbar-locked thorax rotation test can accurately discriminate between individuals with active and passive physiological deficits regardless of rater experience using visual estimation. Level of Evidence: 3b.
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.