ArticlePloS one2026
Bridging clinical and computational assessments: Standardizing kinematic reporting in modified mallet scale movements.
Article in PloS one, 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
Accurate assessment of shoulder kinematics in Modified Mallet Scale (MMS) movements is essential for clinical evaluation and treatment planning in brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI). However, inconsistencies in reporting methods affect the reliability of kinematic data. This study aims to determine the optimal Euler sequence for reporting shoulder kinematics during MMS movements. Kinematic data from the unaffected arms of ten children with BPBI were collected using inertial measurement units and analyzed retrospectively. Three commonly adopted Euler sequences (ZXY, XZY, YXY) were analyzed. The occurrence of discontinuities, including gimbal lock, phase angle discontinuities, was quantified. Additionally, amplitude coherence was evaluated by comparing reported joint angles with clinically expected values. The ZXY sequence was the only method that exhibited gimbal lock, particularly in global abduction (M1), global external rotation (M2), and hand-to-neck (M3). XZY and YXY showed no gimbal lock; however, YXY showed two instances of phase angle discontinuities. Amplitude coherence analysis identified XZY and YXY as most suitable for M1 and M2, YXY for M3 and hand-to-mouth (M5), XZY for hand-to-back (M4), ZXY for hand-to-belly (M6). The method used to report shoulder kinematics has a major impact on the accuracy of MMS movement analysis. Our findings highlight the need for movement-specific, standardized reporting approaches that reduce discontinuities and maintain amplitude coherence. Establishing such standards is essential for enhancing clinical relevance and ensuring meaningful comparisons across studies, particularly in the evaluation of BPBI.
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.