ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Proprioception and its relationship with range of motion in hypermobile and normal mobile children.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate differences in proprioception using four proprioceptive tests in children with and without hypermobility. Additionally, it was tested if the results on one proprioceptive test predict the results on the other tests. Of the children (8-11years), 100 were classified as normal mobile (Beighton score 0-4) and 50 as hypermobile (Beighton score 5-9). To test proprioception, in the upper extremity the unilateral and bilateral joint position reproduction tasks were used and for the lower extremity the loaded and unloaded wedges task. No differences were found in any of the proprioception tests between the two groups. Estimating the height of the wedges was easier in the loaded position (mean penalty in standing and sitting position, 4.78 and 6.19, respectively). Recalling the elbow position in the same arm resulted in smaller errors compared to tasks reproducing the position with the contralateral arm. Of the four angles used (110°, 90°, 70°, 50°), the position recall in the 90° angle had the smallest position error (1.8°). Correlations between the proprioception tests were weak (Loaded and Unloaded (r 0. 28); Uni and Bilateral (r 0.39), Upper and Lower extremity not significant). No indication of poorer proprioception was found in children with hypermobile joints compared to their normal mobile peers. Loading gives extra information that leads to fewer errors in the wedges task performed while standing, but this effect is independent of joint mobility. Proprioception test outcomes are dependent on the test used; upper extremity results do not predict lower extremity outcomes or vice versa.
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.