ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Assessing Shoulder Proprioceptive Sense of Force: Hand-Held Dynamometer Reliability and Comparison with Isokinetic Protocols.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2025. 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.
- Shoulder proprioceptive sense of force in chronic anterior instability: performance and clinical associations.JSES international · 2026Article
- Shoulder Internal and External Rotator Strength Reliability and Validity in Healthy Adolescent Athletes.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
- Proprioceptive deficits following a traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
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: Proprioception is crucial for shoulder stability, yet clinical methods for assessing all aspects, particularly the sense of force (SOF) -the ability to perceive, interpret, and reproduce force at a joint-are limited. The purpose of this study was to test a new SOF protocol with a handheld dynamometer (HHD) and examine its agreement with an isokinetic dynamometer (IKD), as well as its reliability and the effect of contraction intensity. Design: Cross-sectional measurement study. Methods: Fifty-one healthy participants were assessed for SOF using an Isokinetic dynamometer (IKD) and a HHD to evaluate the agreement between the two methods. Of the initial sample, 25 participants completed a second session with the HHD, enabling the evaluation of the protocol's reliability exclusively with this device. Error score were also compared between three different contraction intensities: 10%, 30% and 50% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) for intra-rater (within-day and between-day) and inter-rater (within-day) reliability while agreement between the tools was assessed using regression line method. Results: Agreement between devices was low with a poor correlation observed between measurements. The HHD SOF protocol showed low to moderate reliability for intra-rater between-day assessments, with ICCs from 0.44 to 0.64. The absolute reliability MDC95 ranged from 12% to 42%. Inter-rater within-day reliability was low, with ICCs from 0.007 to 0.43. Significant differences in error scores were observed between the HHD and IKD at 30% and 50% MVIC, and higher error scores were noted at Target 10% MVIC compared to 30% and 50%. Conclusions: The SOF protocol using HHD demonstrates moderate reliability but low inter-rater reliability. Different tools yield varying results, with force intensity impacting SOF error scores, while rotation does not. Level of evidence: 2b.
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.