ArticleJSES international2025
How do visual and smartphone camera-based shoulder ranges of motion compare?
Article in JSES international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Objective assessment of functional shoulder range of motion (ROM) is crucial for evaluating shoulder interventions and guiding rehabilitation. The goniometer is the clinical standard, but due to practicality, visual estimation is often used despite its lower reliability. Recently, smartphone video-based assessment using two-dimensional (2D) pose estimation models has emerged as a potential objective alternative. This study aimed to compare 2D-pose-based ROM assessment with visual estimation and examine inter-observer agreement. Methods: Seventeen individuals (8 females, 9 males) with normal, pain-free shoulder function were assessed for active ROM in abduction, flexion, extension, external rotation (ER) in two positions (ERI & ERII), and functional internal rotation (FIR). 2D videos from three smartphones were used to estimate shoulder ROM, while two othopedic surgeons visually estimated ROM. For each movement, participants performed six repetitions, three at maximum and three less than maximum ROM (self-selected). Mixed effects models assessed the relationship between 2D-pose-based and visual-based ROM, with visual observer as fixed factor and visual estimates × observer interaction. The coefficient of determination (R Results: Consistency between 2D-pose and visual estimates was excellent for abduction (R Conclusion: 2D-pose-based estimates of shoulder ROM were consistent with visual estimates for most movements, though discrepancies existed at specific ROM levels and between observers. The higher resolution estimates of 2D-pose suggests it could reduce observer variation, making it a promising alternative for clinical and research settings. However, further refinement is needed for movements like ERI and FIR using both methods. These findings highlight the importance of method consistency in assessing shoulder ROM and the potential benefits of automated methods for more consistent evaluations.
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.