ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Accuracy of visual estimation of shoulder abduction by expert physiotherapists: a comparative study using 3D motion capture.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
backgroundAccurate assessment of shoulder range of motion is essential for clinical decision-making in physiotherapy. While visual estimation of joint angles is commonly used in practice, its agreement with objective reference measurements under clinically relevant conditions remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the agreement between video-based expert visual estimation of shoulder abduction and three-dimensional (3D) motion capture as a reference standard.
methodsA cross-sectional method comparison study was conducted. Shoulder abduction movements of four healthy participants were recorded using a 3D motion capture system. Twenty-four video recordings were presented to experienced physiotherapists (≥ 10 years of clinical experience), who visually estimated joint angles via an online questionnaire. Differences between estimated and reference values were analysed using descriptive statistics, Bland-Altman analysis, and cross-classified mixed-effects modelling to account for repeated measurements across raters and video stimuli.
resultsA total of 923 paired observations from 33 experts were analysed. Visual estimation showed a consistent tendency toward overestimation, with a mean difference of 14.7° (SD 11.6°) and limits of agreement ranging from - 8.0° to 37.5°. A cross-classified mixed-effects model estimated a mean bias of 14.5° (95% CI 11.8° to 17.3°), confirming systematic overestimation. Most estimates (89.9%) exceeded the reference value. Variability was substantial, with 27.3% of variance attributable to differences between video stimuli and 10.5% to differences between raters.
conclusionVisual estimation of shoulder abduction angles by experienced physiotherapists showed limited agreement with a 3D motion capture reference and a consistent tendency toward overestimation. Given the observed variability, visual estimation alone may be insufficient for accurately detecting small changes in joint angle. The use of objective measurement tools may support more reliable assessment in clinical practice.
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.