Academic Bibliography
https://biblio.ugent.be/
Ghent University Academic Bibliography2000-01-01T00:00+00:001monthlyHow does a motor or cognitive dual-task affect our sense of upper limb proprioception?
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HSX6QV6D4CJYA9MSBTWEF5DH
Melo, Renato S.Ager, AmandaCools, AnnBorms, DorienRoy, Jean-Sébastien2024<jats:sec id="sec001">
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Daily upper limb activities require multitasking and our division of attention. How we allocate our attention can be studied using dual-task interference (DTi). Given the vital role proprioception plays in movement planning and motor control, it is important to investigate how conscious upper limb proprioception is impacted by DTi through cognitive and motor interference.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="sec002">
<jats:title>Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>To examine how dual-task interference impacts conscious upper limb proprioception during active joint repositioning tasks (AJRT).</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="sec003">
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>Forty-two healthy participants, aged between 18 and 35, took part in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed two AJRT during three conditions: baseline (single task), dual-cognitive task (serial subtractions), and dual-motor task (non-dominant hand movements). The proprioceptive error (PE; difference between their estimation and targeted position) was measured using an AJRT of 75% and 90% of maximum internal rotation using the Biodex System III<jats:sup>TM</jats:sup> and the Upper Limb Proprioception Reaching Test (PRO-Reach). To determine if PEs differed during dual-task interference, interference change scores from baseline were used with one sample <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-tests and analyses of variance.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="sec004">
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>The overall mean PE with the Biodex was 4.1° ± 1.9 at baseline. Mean change scores from baseline reflect a mean improvement of 1.5° ± 1.0 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < .001) during dual-cognitive task and of 1.5° ± 1.2 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < .001) during dual-motor task. The overall mean PE with the PRO-Reach was 4.4cm ± 1.1 at baseline. Mean change scores from baseline reflect a mean worsening of 1.0cm ± 1.1 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < .001) during dual-cognitive task and improvement of 0.8cm ± 0.6 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < .001) during dual-motor task. Analysis of variance with the Biodex PEs revealed an interference effect (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < .001), with the cognitive condition causing greater PEs compared to the motor condition and a criterion position effect (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .006), where 75% of maximum IR produced larger PEs during both interference conditions. An interference effect (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .022) with the PRO-Reach PEs was found highlighting a difference between the cognitive and motor conditions, with decreased PEs during the contralateral motor task.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec id="sec005">
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>Interference tasks did impact proprioception. Cognitive interference produced mixed results, whereas improved proprioception was seen during motor interference. Individual task prioritization strategies are possible, where each person may choose their own attention strategy when faced with dual-task interference.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HSX6QV6D4CJYA9MSBTWEF5DHhttp://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HSX6QV6D4CJYA9MSBTWEF5DHhttp://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299856https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HSX6QV6D4CJYA9MSBTWEF5DH/file/01HSX6X0G6JX3QY02HSAXG9AXKengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)Information pendinginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPLOS ONEISSN: 1932-6203MultidisciplinaryHow does a motor or cognitive dual-task affect our sense of upper limb proprioception?journalArticleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionUpper limb functional testing in athletes : a Delphi study
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01GX3GC071K9DXZARNEAA8Y17M
Tooth, CamilleSchwartz, CédricCools, AnnCroisier, Jean-LouisGofflot, AmandineStephen, BornheimForthomme, Bénédicte2024Background
Functional testing has recently become more and more popular to assess athletes, both for injury prevention, as well as in an objective of performance. However, the relationship between the results of these tests and performances (or injuries) or their interpretation remains unclear.
Objective
The aim of this study is to explore the usefulness, the characteristics, and the interpretation of the most frequently used upper-limb functional test.
Methods
Twenty-two experts with an excellent knowledge of upper limb functional tests and an expertise in sports medicine and/or sports training of at least 5 years were recruited. They answered to qualitative and quantitative questions about functional testing trough structured questionnaires (online).
Results
Four rounds were needed to reach a consensus about the usefulness as well as the characteristics of each test. Different sports-specific batteries of tests were also suggested by the experts and reached consensus. However, concerning the interpretation of the test, a consensus was only found for half of the tests considered.
Conclusion
The current study summarizes the characteristics and the usefulness of the most popular upper-limb functional tests. However, the interpretation of some tests will have to be further explored since no consensus was found for them.application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01GX3GC071K9DXZARNEAA8Y17Mhttp://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01GX3GC071K9DXZARNEAA8Y17Mhttp://doi.org/10.1177/17585732221101880https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01GX3GC071K9DXZARNEAA8Y17M/file/01HM959F5938PJ1MDV099EVKC4engSAGE PublicationsNo license (in copyright)info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessSHOULDER & ELBOWISSN: 1758-5732ISSN: 1758-5740Medicine and Health SciencesRehabilitationPhysical Therapy, Sports Therapy and RehabilitationOrthopedics and Sports MedicineSurgeryUpper limb functional testing in athletes : a Delphi studyjournalArticleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionRelationship between pain and proprioception among individuals with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVM7RAH1M9NSHESSSX89VNS
Ager, AmandaRoy, Jean-SébastienDubé, Marc-OlivierCools, AnnBorms, Dorien2024application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVM7RAH1M9NSHESSSX89VNShttp://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HRVM7RAH1M9NSHESSSX89VNShttp://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2023.10.007https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVM7RAH1M9NSHESSSX89VNS/file/01HRVMCRRWDTC74318YRPD5P7MengElsevier BVNo license (in copyright)info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessJOURNAL OF HAND THERAPYISSN: 0894-1130ISSN: 1545-004XMedicine and Health SciencesRehabilitationPhysical Therapy, Sports Therapy and RehabilitationRelationship between pain and proprioception among individuals with rotator cuff-related shoulder painjournalArticleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionTo allow or avoid pain during shoulder rehabilitation exercises for patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the PASE trial)
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVKZ3HQVKDS0Z5X9NS1XN8G
Kjær, Birgitte HougsCools, AnnJohannsen, Finn E.Trøstrup, JeanetteBieler, TheresaSiersma, VolkertMagnusson, Peter S.2024Background
Rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy is the most reported shoulder disorder in the general population with highest prevalence in overhead athletes and adult working-age population. A growing body of evidence support exercise therapy as an effective intervention, but to date there are no prospective randomized controlled trials addressing pain as an intervention variable.
Methods
A single-site, prospective, pragmatic, assessor-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial. Eighty-four patients aged 18–55 years with chronic (symptom duration over 3 months) RC tendinopathy are randomized 1:1 to receive shoulder exercise during which pain is either allowed or avoided. The intervention period lasts 26 weeks. During that period, participants in both groups are offered 8 individual on-site sessions with an assigned sports physiotherapist. Participants perform home exercises and are provided with a pain and exercise logbook and asked to report completed home-based exercise sessions and reasons for not completing sessions (pain or other reasons). Patients are also asked to report load and the number of sets and repetitions per sets for each exercise session. The logbooks are collected continuously throughout the intervention period. The primary and secondary outcomes are obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, 26 weeks, and 1 year after baseline. The primary outcome is patient-reported pain and disability using the Shoulder PAin and Disability Index (SPADI). Secondary outcomes are patient-reported pain and disability using Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand short-form (Quick DASH), and shoulder pain using Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Objective outcomes are shoulder range of motion, isometric shoulder muscle strength, pain sensitivity, working ability, and structural changes in the supraspinatus tendon and muscle using ultrasound.
Discussion
The results of this study will contribute knowledge about the treatment strategies for patients with RC tendinopathy and help physiotherapists in clinical decision-making. This is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of allowing pain versus avoiding pain during shoulder exercises in patients with chronic RC tendinopathy. If tolerating pain during and after exercise proves to be effective, it will potentially expand our understanding of “exercising into pain” for this patient group, as there is currently no consensus.application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVKZ3HQVKDS0Z5X9NS1XN8Ghttp://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HRVKZ3HQVKDS0Z5X9NS1XN8Ghttp://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-07973-6https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVKZ3HQVKDS0Z5X9NS1XN8G/file/01HRVM167EV5RY4B6RG3FRRCRCengSpringer Science and Business Media LLCCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0)info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTRIALSISSN: 1745-6215Medicine and Health SciencesPharmacology (medical)Medicine (miscellaneous)To allow or avoid pain during shoulder rehabilitation exercises for patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the PASE trial)journalArticleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionUpper limb strength and performance deficits after glenohumeral joint stabilization surgery in contact and collision athletes
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVK263350TJHZTB5ZNJY7HG
Fanning, Edel Daniels, KatherineCools, Ann Mullett, Hannan Delaney, Ruth Mcfadden, Ciaran Falvey, Eanna2024PurposeThe primary aim was to identify and quantify differences in interlimb asymmetry magnitudes across a battery of upper extremity strength and performance tests at 4 and 6 months after glenohumeral joint stabilization surgery shoulder stabilization in contact and collision athletes compared with an un-injured group. A secondary aim was to investigate if identified asymmetry magnitudes changed from 4 to 6 months after glenohumeral joint stabilization surgery. The third aim was to explore associations within the different performance and strength variables.MethodsFifty-six male contact and collision sport athletes who had had undergone unilateral glenohumeral joint stabilization were tested at 4 and 6 months after surgery. An un-injured control group (n = 39 for upper extremity performance tests, n = 47 for isokinetic dynamometry) were tested on a single occasion. Three upper extremity force platform-based performance tests and angle-specific concentric internal and external isokinetic shoulder rotational strength were assessed, and interlimb asymmetries were compared between the two groups.ResultsAt 4 months after surgery, the glenohumeral joint stabilization group demonstrated significantly higher absolute interlimb asymmetry values than the un-injured group for almost all the performance test variables. In the ballistic upper-body performance tests, the glenohumeral joint stabilization group achieved only half the body elevation reached by the un-injured (counter-movement push-up jump height (eta 2 = 0.50) and press-jump jump height (eta 2 = 0.39)). At 6 months after surgery, absolute interlimb asymmetries reduced for the performance test variables, but some asymmetry persisted. The glenohumeral joint stabilization group had significantly greater absolute interlimb asymmetries for five out the eight isokinetic variables.ConclusionsContact and collision athletes who may be cleared to return to sport at 4 to 6 months after glenohumeral joint stabilization surgery shoulder stabilization continue to demonstrate upper limb strength and performance deficits when compared with their un-injured limb and their un-injured counterparts.application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVK263350TJHZTB5ZNJY7HGhttp://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HRVK263350TJHZTB5ZNJY7HGhttp://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003290https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HRVK263350TJHZTB5ZNJY7HG/file/01HRVKGY3B3A6JKT4RJ10BXPSWengLippincott Williams & WilkinsNo license (in copyright)info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessMEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEISSN: 0195-9131ISSN: 1530-0315Medicine and Health SciencesCONSENSUS STATEMENTRUGBYINJURYRETURNSPORTRISKEPIDEMIOLOGYINSTABILITYSHOULDER STABILIZATIONCONTACT ATHLETESISOKINETIC STRENGTHPERFORMANCE TESTUpper limb strength and performance deficits after glenohumeral joint stabilization surgery in contact and collision athletesjournalArticleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionSpecific aspects of throwing sports in recreational and competitive sport
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8560067
Mayr, HermannZaffagnini, StefanoLansdaal, Joris Rvan den Bekerom, Michel PJCools, AnnJones, ValLefevre, NicolasServien, Elvire2016application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8560067http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8560067http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47706-9_8https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8560067/file/01HRVJ1NA45GYFX3AGC4RP0AEMengSpringerNo license (in copyright)info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessPrevention of injuries and overuse in sports : directory for physicians, physiotherapists, sport scientists and coachesISBN: 9783662477052ISBN: 9783662477069Medicine and Health SciencesSpecific aspects of throwing sports in recreational and competitive sportbookChapterinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bookPartinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionShoulder rehabilitation : a practical guide for the clinician
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8743128
Cools, Ann2020This book offers practical guidelines for the clinician in the field of shoulder rehabilitation. It is a must-have for every physiotherapist with a special interest in shoulder disorders. This book is the result of many years of evolving knowledge and experience within this field, based on scientific research, as well as clinical practice.
Each chapter starts from a theoretical background on the topic, presents a detailed treatment strategy that is immediately applicable in the clinical setting, and closes with a critical discussion based on current literature. In part 1, the clinical examination and general rehabilitation principles are discussed. In part 2, treatment guidelines are described for the most common shoulder disorders such as tendinopathy, instability, stiffness and dysfunction of the scapula. Part 3 is dedicated to special considerations for the sporting shoulder, including sport specific rehabilitation, injury prevention, and return to sports.application/pdfhttps://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8743128http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8743128urn:isbn:9789463969314https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8743128/file/01HRVHR6GEH1K0XNVEFFGQY25PengSKRIBISNo license (in copyright)info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessMedicine and Health SciencesShoulder rehabilitation : a practical guide for the clinicianbookinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bookinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion