4.6 Review

Clinician-friendly physical performance tests in athletes part 3: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlations to injury for tests in the upper extremity

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095198

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective In parts 1 and 2 of this systematic review, the methodological quality as well as the quality of the measurement properties of physical performance tests (PPTs) of the lower extremity in athletes was assessed. In this study, part 3, PPTs of the upper extremity in athletes are examined. Methods Database and hand searches were conducted to identify primary literature addressing the use of upper extremity PPTs in athletes. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to critique the methodological quality of each paper. The Terwee Scale was used to analyse the quality of the measurement properties of each test. Results 11 articles that examined 6 PPTs were identified. The 6 PPTs were: closed kinetic chain upper extremity stability test (CKCUEST), seated shot put (2 hands), unilateral seated shot put, medicine ball throw, modified push-up test and 1-arm hop test. Best evidence synthesis provided moderate positive evidence for the CKCUEST and unilateral seated shot put. Limited positive evidence was available for the medicine ball throw and 1-arm hop test. Conclusions There are a limited number of upper extremity PPTs used as part of musculoskeletal screening examinations, or as outcome measures in athletic populations. The CKCUEST and unilateral seated shot put are 2 promising PPTs based on moderate evidence. However, the utility of the PPTs in injured populations is unsubstantiated in literature and warrants further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据