ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Handheld Dynamometry Shows Moderate Reliability and Responsiveness in Assessing Shoulder Muscle Strength After Rotator Cuff Repair.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate both the reliability and responsiveness of handheld dynamometry (HHD) in assessing shoulder external rotation, flexion, and internal rotation strength during long-term follow-up in patients following rotator cuff repair and to provide evidence for the clinical utility of HHD in this context. Methods: This retrospective study investigated patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between 2014 and 2019. Patients with repeat tears were excluded. Muscle strength was assessed preoperatively and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively using a handheld dynamometer. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from linear mixed-effects models, while responsiveness was assessed via minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations. Missing data were handled with multiple imputations, and statistical analyses were performed using R. Results: A total of 124 patients (mean age: 64.4 ± 9.8 years) were included, with 69.4% of surgeries performed on the right shoulder. Moderate reliability of HHD was shown for muscle strength measurements, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.59 to 0.69. Muscle strength and MCID achievement rates improved significantly over 24 months ( Conclusions: HHD showed moderate reliability and responsiveness in assessing shoulder muscle strength after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Significant improvements in muscle strength and MCID achievement rates were observed over 24 months, suggesting the potential utility of HHD for monitoring recovery in this patient population. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective diagnostic case series.
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.