ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2026
Limb Position Sense Across Multiple Proprioceptive Tasks in Healthy Adults.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
Objective: To investigate and compare proprioception characteristics in healthy adults using different measurement methods.
methodsParticipants engaged in three tasks using a device developed to assess elbow joint proprioception: the ipsilateral matching task (IMT), contralateral matching task (CMT), and pointing task (PT). Each task was performed three times at different angles (30°, 50°, and 70°) in a randomised order for nine trials and tested for both the right and left arms. Activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form.
resultsTwenty healthy adults (10 males, mean age: 39.80±12.19 years) were enrolled. The absolute error of the IMT was significantly lower than that of the CMT and PT (Bonferroni [Bonf.] p=0.029 and 0.016, respectively). PT showed a higher variable error than that of IMT and CMT (Bonf. p<0.001, and 0.040, respectively). There were no significant differences in errors across tasks based on sex or age. The total International Physical Activity Questionnaire- Short Form score showed statistically significant correlations with the absolute error (r=-.460, p=0.041) and constant error (r=-.469, p=0.037) of the CMT and variable error of the PT (r=-.478, p=0.033). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that different proprioceptive tasks can assess the unique characteristics of proprioceptive function. The IMT produced lower error values than those of the CMT and PT, with the PT exhibiting higher variability. These differences may stem from distinct mechanisms that depend on the nature of each task and warrant further investigation.
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.