ArticlePeerJ2024
Multimodal sensorimotor assessment of hand and forearm asymmetries: a reliability and correlational study.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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.
- Effects of 12 Weeks of Interval Block Resistance Training Versus Circuit Resistance Training on Body Composition, Performance, and Autonomic Recovery in Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- High Versus Low-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Lateral and Medial Elbow Tendinopathy and Previous Injuries to Adjacent Joints: A Multicenter Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Effective rehabilitation of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders requires multimodal assessment to guide clinicians' decision-making. Furthermore, a comprehensive assessment must include reliable tests. Nevertheless, the interrelationship among various upper limb tests remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of easily applicable upper extremity assessments, including absolute values and asymmetries of muscle mechanical properties, pressure pain threshold, active range of motion, maximal isometric strength, and manual dexterity. A secondary aim was to explore correlations between different assessment procedures to determine their interrelationship. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects participated in two experimental sessions with 1 week between sessions. Measurements involved using a digital myotonometer, algometer, inclinometer, dynamometer, and the Nine-Hole Peg test. Intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of the mean, and minimum detectable change were calculated as reliability indicators. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the interrelationship between tests. Results: For the absolute values of the dominant and nondominant sides, reliability was 'good' to 'excellent' for muscle mechanical properties, pressure pain thresholds, active range of motion, maximal isometric strength, and manual dexterity. Similarly, the reliability for asymmetries ranged from 'moderate' to 'excellent' across the same parameters. Faster performance in the second session was consistently found for the Nine-Hole Peg test. No systematic inter-session errors were identified for the values of the asymmetries. No significant correlations were found between tests, indicating test independence. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the sensorimotor battery of tests is reliable, while monitoring asymmetry changes may offer a more conservative approach to effectively tracking recovery of upper extremity injuries.
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.