ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology2026
Differences in trunk rotation angle between bar-holding and crossed-arms positions in a seated position.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As trunk rotation is essential for sports requiring spinal mobility, accurate assessment is important for identifying functional deficits and evaluating performance. This study compared trunk rotation angles and left-right asymmetry between bar-holding and crossed-arms positions. Materials and methods: Twenty-four athletes performed seated trunk rotation under two conditions: (1) a bar-holding position (bar resting on shoulders), which allows shoulder girdle contribution, and (2) a crossed-arms position, which minimizes it. A ceiling-mounted camera captured overhead images. Markers attached to the acromion and posterior superior iliac spines were used to track trunk and pelvic movement, respectively. Rotation angles were calculated relative to the horizontal reference line. Each angle was measured three times per condition and averaged for analysis. Results: Trunk rotation angles were significantly greater in the bar-holding condition than in the crossed-arms condition (right: 58.0 ± 12.9° vs. 49.2 ± 10.1°; left: 55.9 ± 12.3° vs. 47.5 ± 9.6°; p < 0.01). High positive correlations were found between conditions for both right (r = 0.82, p < 0.01) and left rotation angles (r = 0.65, p < 0.01). Asymmetry patterns were also positively correlated between conditions (r = 0.64, p < 0.01). Discussion: The larger angles in the bar-holding condition confirm that shoulder girdle motion contributes substantially to the measured trunk rotation. However, the consistent asymmetry patterns suggest that either posture is valid for identifying side-to-side imbalances. Conclusion: This study highlights that the choice of upper limb position substantially influences the measured range of trunk rotation. Collectively, these findings emphasize that clinicians should select the specific test position based on the evaluation purpose-whether to isolate thoracic motion or to assess coordinated trunk-shoulder movement.
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.