ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2025
Effect of Counterforce Brace Placement on Muscle Activation in Healthy Adults.
Article in Journal of chiropractic medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal placement of a counterforce brace in muscle activation and strength in healthy participants. Methods: Seven healthy participants (14 hands) with no history of lateral humeral epicondylitis were randomly assigned to two groups from an initial pool of 12 participants. Group A (4 participants, 8 hands) wore a hard knob-padded counterforce brace near the lateral epicondyle, while Group B (Control Group) (3 participants, 6 hands) wore the brace in its customary location, aligned with the lateral epicondyle over the proximal third of the forearm near the muscle belly. Brace placement was assigned to the dominant hand for each participant, while the nondominant hand received the alternative brace placement (ie, the other position of the counterforce brace). Acceleration amplitude and integrals were dependent variables. The design allowed for comparison of outcomes from 2 different brace placements within the same individual. Results: The hard knob-padded counterforce brace positioned near the lateral epicondyle demonstrated better outcomes compared to the customary placement. Conclusion: This study offers insights into the influence of counterforce brace placement on muscle activation and strength in healthy participants. In this study, placement of the brace at the lateral epicondyle showed better muscle strength and reduced acceleration amplitude, compared to traditional placement.
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.