## 5 Discussion  
Findings of our study showed that a possible correlation between the increasing amount of shoulder pathology on ultrasound examination and the worse performance of WST exists only for the non-dominant shoulder (\(p<0.05\) in both sessions), as observed from the comparison between the USPRS of the non-dominant shoulder (USPRS ND in Table 4) and both the 20 m sprint and figure-of-eight sprint tests. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c} **Figure-of-Eight** \\ **Sprint Time T1** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**USPRS D** & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.376\) \\ \(p=0.253\) \\ \end{tabular} & NA & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.232\) \\ \(p=0.518\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.201\) \\ \(p=0.509\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.069\) \\ \(p=0.849\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.494\) \\ \(p=0.408\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**USPRS ND** & NA & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.534\) \\ \(p=0.060\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.833\) \\ \(p=0.002\) * \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.659\) \\ \(p=0.014\) * \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.635\) \\ \(p=0.048\) * \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.796\) \\ \(p=0.005\) * \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: [PERSON]’s correlation coefficients and statistical relationships between Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale of the dominant and non-dominant shoulder and Physical Examination Shoulder Score of the dominant and non-dominant shoulder, and wheelchair skill tests. Abbreviations: D, dominant; ND, non-dominant; PESS, Physical Examination Shoulder Score; SCI, spinal cord injury; USPRS, Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale; NA, not applicable; \(\rho\) = Spearman’s rho, * \(p<0.05\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c} **Figure-of-Eight** \\ **Sprint Time T1** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Age** & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.357\) \\ \(p=0.281\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.055\) \\ \(p=0.871\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.376\) \\ \(p=0.253\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.051\) \\ \(p=0.879\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.154\) \\ \(p=0.649\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.073\) \\ \(p=0.801\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.073\) \\ \(p=0.883\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.095\) \\ \(p=0.779\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Body Mass** & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.014\) \\ \(p=0.967\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.110\) \\ \(p=0.747\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.532\) \\ \(p=0.091\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.032\) \\ \(p=0.923\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.032\) \\ \(p=0.501\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.027\) \\ \(p=0.280\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.310\) \\ \(p=0.280\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.418\) \\ \(p=0.200\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.181\) \\ \(p=0.592\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Years with** & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.027\) \\ \(p=0.708\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.060\) \\ \(p=0.860\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.788\) \\ \(p=0.003\) * \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.455\) \\ \(p=0.159\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.027\) \\ \(p=0.935\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.242\) \\ \(p=0.403\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.211\) \\ \(p=0.532\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho=0.082\) \\ \(p=0.808\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: [PERSON]’s correlation coefficients and statistical relationships between age, body mass index, years with spinal cord injury, Physical Examination Shoulder Score of the dominant and non-dominant shoulder, Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale of the dominant and non-dominant shoulder and wheelchair skill tests.