SLBT: Inter-rater reliability with eyes open and eyes closed were ICC: 0.994 (95% CI 0.989-0.996) and ICC:0.998 (95% CI 0.996-0.999), respectively. (1) DLL: 0.79,, Intra-rater reliability ICC: 0.84, Inter-rater reliability ICC: Sen: 0.98, Spec: 0.84, +PV: 0.862, -PV: 0.909, ROC: 0.95 (1) ST: Intra-rater reliability ICC: 0.88 (95% CI 0.73-0.95) Intra-rater reliability ICC: 0.78, Sens: .92, Spec: .84, +PV: 0.808 -PV: 0.90, ROC: 0.90 MSPT: Modified from original version due to avoidance of pain at the affected shoulder and increased tolerance for subjects with shoulder dysfunction. As such the clinician is unable to determine the true reliability, validity, specificity, sensitivity, +PV and –PV with any confidence. Selection Criteria Excluding overhead athletes who were non-active in there respective sport due to shoulder pain or dysfunction, the authors may have depleted their prospective subject population with shoulder dysfunction and may account for the large disparity between the number of subjects allocated to each group, non-shoulder dysfunction (NSDF) (N=48), shoulder dysfunction (SDF) (N=14). This deficit in participants with shoulder dysfunction could potentially underestimate the magnitude of which balance and postural stability affect instance of shoulder dysfunction due to lack of subject pool included in the study. Those who were excluded based on KJOC and QD scores could have had deficits in core stability and balance of larger magnitude in comparison to those allocated to the SDF group, possibly strengthening the correlation between the independent and dependent variables. All of the over-head athletes would be classified as throwers and thus participate in largely open-chain activities at the upper extremity compared to my patient of focus (rock climbers). The subjects were randomized to what core measure station they would start. This would prevent learned effects from other participants observing form and technique of completion Authors noted Limitations: Small sample size of participants with shoulder dysfunction, randomized sample of convenience due to strict inclusion criteria, absence of dynamic multi-planar testing procedures and modification of many of the testing procedures to increase patient comfort. References: 1. Arab A.M et al. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the clinical trunk muscle endurance tests in LBP. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2007;volume 21:640-647
Interpretation of Results [Favourable or unfavourable, specific outcomes of interest, size of treatment effect, statistical and clinical significance, minimal clinically important difference. You may calculate effect size or confidence intervals yourself from the data provided in the article.] Describe in your own words what the results mean.
MANOVA analysis found significant differences (p=0.038) in the mean score on the SLBT between the SDF and NSDF groups, however these findings only show that there was a difference in one of the groups rather than which group showed the actual difference. Mean scores with the SLBT in the SDF and NSDF group were 10.14 +/- (5.76)(p<0.05) and 18.98 +/- (15.22), respectively. Confidence intervals were excluded, which decreases my confidence in the amount of variance and associated accuracy and