ArticleShoulder & elbow2026
Clinicians who think scapular dyskinesis is important are more likely to identify it in healthy individuals.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess interrater reliability of the visual scapular dyskinesis test among physical therapists and examine how clinician beliefs influence classifications of healthy shoulders. Methods: 104 physical therapists (≥3 years of experience) rated five videos of healthy volunteers performing weighted arm elevations, using a Yes/No classification for scapular dyskinesis. Participants completed a survey rating the perceived importance of scapular dyskinesis (1-10 scale), reported years of experience, and number of shoulder patients seen weekly. Fleiss' Kappa quantified reliability, and a mixed-effects model evaluated associations between ratings and clinician factors. Results: Interrater reliability was low (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.12); agreement ranged from 53.9% to 76.9%. Clinicians who considered scapular dyskinesis more important were more likely to classify it as present (OR = 1.42; 95% CI [1.14, 1.76]; Conclusion: The visual scapular dyskinesis test demonstrated poor reliability. Beliefs about its clinical importance and lower shoulder caseloads increased the likelihood of reporting dyskinesis. These findings question the test's diagnostic value and underscore the need for more objective assessment methods.
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.