ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2024
The Clinical Utility of the Seated Wall Angel as a Test with Scoring.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The seated wall angel (SWA) is an intervention to improve upper quarter mobility but has not been described as a clinical test with scoring. Hypothesis/ Purpose: To explore the clinical utility of the SWA as a test with scoring. The authors hypothesized that SWA test scores would be lower on the injured than uninjured side, improve over time, and show stronger association with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests. Study Design: Prospective cohort. Methods: Patients diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and referred to physical therapy participated. Testing occurred after physical therapy examination (initial) and six weeks later (follow-up). Rehabilitation was not controlled. Testing included clinical tests (SWA, passive shoulder external rotation range of motion, total arc of motion) and patient-reported outcomes including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, (ASES) and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The SWA test was scored 0 to 3 points bilaterally based on number of body contacts with the wall (i.e., elbows and fingertips, posterior fingers, posterior forearm). Passive range of motion was measured with a standard goniometer. SWA scores were compared between sides at initial testing and compared between testing timepoints on the injured side. Associations among injured side clinical test values and patient-reported outcome scores were examined. Results: Mean (SD) SWA score on the injured side was significantly lower than the uninjured side at initial testing [1.6 (1.0) vs 2.2 (1.1), p = 0.045] and significantly increased at follow-up testing [2.4 (1.0), p = 0.041]. Only SWA test score was significantly correlated with ASES (r=0.597) and WOSI (r=-0.648) scores at initial testing, and SWA test score was significantly correlated with WOSI score at follow-up testing (r=-0.611). Conclusions: The clinical utility of the SWA test is supported by distinguishing the injured and uninjured sides and having stronger associations with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests.
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.