Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Shoulder proprioception: How is it measured and is it reliable? A systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Constituents of proprioception include our awareness of the position (joint position sense [JPS]) and motion (kinesthesia) of our limbs in space. Proprioceptive deficits are associated with musculoskeletal disorders but remain a challenge to quantify, particularly at the shoulder.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To report the psychometric values of validity, reliability, and responsiveness for shoulder JPS and/or kinesthesia protocols.

METHODS: A review of 5 databases was conducted from inception to July 2016 for studies reporting a psychometric property of a shoulder proprioception protocol. The included studies were evaluated using the QualSyst checklist and COSMIN 4-point scale.

RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, yielding 407 participants and 553 evaluated shoulders (n). The included studies support excellent methodological scores using the QualSyst checklist (88.1 ± 9.9%) and good psychometric scores with the COSMIN for reliability (71.1%) and moderate-to-low quality score (50%) for criterion validity. Weighted average intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intrarater reliability were highest for passive JPS and kinesthesia, ICC = 0.92 ± 0.07 (n = 214) and ICC = 0.92 ± 0.04 (n = 74), respectively. The most reliable movement and tool are internal rotation at 90° of abduction, ICC = 0.88 ± 0.01 (n = 53), and the dynamometer, ICC = 0.92 ± 0.88 (n = 225). Only 2 studies quantify an aspect of validity and no responsiveness indices were reported among the included studies.

CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the included studies, the evaluation of shoulder proprioception is most reliable when using a passive protocol with an isokinetic dynamometer for internal rotation at 90° of shoulder abduction. Standardized protocols addressing the psychometric properties of shoulder proprioception measures are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1a: systematic review.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app