However, we had decided a priori to include studies of asymptomatic individuals because of the information on reliability they may provide. Seven of our included studies used healthy volunteers as participants. We note that the Libraries majority of included studies calculated Carfilzomib ICC for expressing reliability of measurement of range of motion between raters. ICC are the most appropriate parameter of reliability for continuous data reflecting the ability of raters
to discriminate between individuals (De Vet et al 2006). For effect of intervention, however, insight into absolute measurement error is required and other parameters, such as the limits of agreement, are preferable for expressing agreement within raters on measurements across multiple occasions over time (Bland and Altman 1986, De Vet et al 2006). To date, such data with respect to measurement of passive movements BI 2536 of upper extremity joints are rarely available. Since reliable measures of passive movement do not necessarily also have low absolute measurement errors, they cannot necessarily be used to evaluate the effect of intervention. Finally, with regard to physiological range of motion in the shoulder, we found large variation in reliability of measurement of external rotation and abduction range. Cyriax (1982) first described patterns of joint restrictions to distinguish
between capsular and other causes, eg, external rotation being most limited followed by abduction followed by internal rotation indicates a capsular cause. This pattern, however, was not corroborated in patients with idiopathic
loss of shoulder range of motion (Rundquist and Ludewig 2004). In addition, almost complete loss of external rotation is the pathognomic sign of frozen shoulder (Dias et al 2005). Valid diagnosis of shoulder disorders based on pattern of passive external rotation and abduction loss of range requires further research. This review has limitations with respect to its search strategy, quality assessment, and analysis. Only 11 included studies originated from our electronic search. A reason for this low electronic yield may be the inconsistent click here terminology used in reliability research. In our experience, reliability studies were poorly indexed in databases. In addition, our search strategy may have been too specific. Although much effort was put into reference tracing and hand searching, it is possible that eligible studies were missed. Furthermore, unpublished studies were not included. Publication bias can form a real threat to internal validity of systematic reviews of reliability studies because they are more likely to report low reliability. Additionally, quality assessment was performed by using criteria derived mainly from the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. No evidence is available on whether these items can be applied to reliability studies.