ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Reliability of a Musculoskeletal Assessment for the Examination of Cervical Spine Pain and Injuries in Special Forces Combat Soldiers.
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An assessment of protocol reliability is an essential step prior to human subject testing for injury prevention. The purpose of this study was to examine the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of a portable cervical range of motion and isometric strength protocol designed for special forces combat soldiers who are at risk for cervical spine pain and injury due to exposure to head-supported mass. Eight individuals were tested three times to assess reliability, the standard error of the measurement (SEM), and the minimal detectable change across six range of motion measures and six strength measures of the cervical spine. One tester tested all participants twice for intra-rater reliability, and a second tester assessed the participants to examine inter-tester reliability. All reliability measures demonstrated good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.70-0.96 (isometric strength); ICC = 0.85-0.94 (range of motion)). All SEM scores were 12% or lower for all reliability measures. The findings of this study demonstrate that the protocol developed for a longitudinal multi-site study is reliable and appropriate to implement for injury prevention in military personnel.
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.