↓ Skip to main content

Shoulder proprioception – lessons we learned from idiopathic frozen shoulder

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Shoulder proprioception – lessons we learned from idiopathic frozen shoulder
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0971-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaroslaw Fabis, Remigiusz Rzepka, Anna Fabis, Jacek Zwierzchowski, Grzegorz Kubiak, Arkadiusz Stanula, Michal Polguj, Radek Maciej

Abstract

Of all the most frequent soft tissue disorders of the shoulder, idiopathic frozen shoulder (IFS) offers the greatest potential for studying proprioception. Studies concerning the presence of proprioception dysfunctions have failed to determine the potential for spontaneous healing of passive shoulder stabilizers (anterior and posterior capsule, middle and inferior gleno-humeral ligaments), its relationship with passive (PJPS) and active (AJPS) shoulder proprioception for internal and external rotation (IR, ER), as well as the isokinetic muscle performance of the internal and external rotators. This study investigates these dependencies in the case of arthroscopic release of IFS. The study group comprised 23 patients (average aged 54.2) who underwent arthroscopic release due to IFS and 20 healthy volunteers. The average follow-up time was 29.2 months. The Biodex system was used for proprioception measurement in a modified neutral arm position and isokinetic evaluation. The results were analysed using the T-test, Wilcoxon and interclass correlation coefficient. P-values lower than 0.05 were considered significant. Statistically significant differences were found between involved (I) and uninvolved (U) shoulders only in the cases of PJPS and AJPS, peak torque, time to peak torque and acceleration time for ER (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was noted between PJPS IR and PJPS ER or between AJPS IR and AJPS ER (p > 0.05) for the U shoulders. The anatomical structure of anterior (capsule, middle and anterior band of inferior gleno-humeral ligament) and posterior (capsule and posterior band of inferior gleno-humeral ligament) passive shoulder restraints has no impact on the difference in PJPS values between ER and IR in a modified neutral shoulder position. The potential for spontaneous healing of the anterior and posterior passive shoulder restraints influences PJPS recovery after arthroscopic release of IFS. ER peak torque deficits negatively affect AJPS values. PJPS and AJPS of ER and IR can be measured with a high level of reproducibility using an isokinetic dynamometer with the arm in a modified neutral shoulder position. Differences greater than 15 % for PJPS and >24 % for AJPS for ER and IR can be helpful for future studies as baseline data for identification of particular passive and active shoulder stabilizers at risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 8 8%
Lecturer 7 7%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Sports and Recreations 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 31 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,458
of 4,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,915
of 300,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#56
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.