Chad Kofoed, Allison Palmsten, Jonathon Diercks, Michael Obermeier, Marc Tompkins, Terese L Chmielewski
{"title":"The Clinical Utility of the Seated Wall Angel as a Test with Scoring.","authors":"Chad Kofoed, Allison Palmsten, Jonathon Diercks, Michael Obermeier, Marc Tompkins, Terese L Chmielewski","doi":"10.26603/001c.123512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The seated wall angel (SWA) is an intervention to improve upper quarter mobility but has not been described as a clinical test with scoring.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis/ purpose: </strong>To explore the clinical utility of the SWA as a test with scoring. The authors hypothesized that SWA test scores would be lower on the injured than uninjured side, improve over time, and show stronger association with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and referred to physical therapy participated. Testing occurred after physical therapy examination (initial) and six weeks later (follow-up). Rehabilitation was not controlled. Testing included clinical tests (SWA, passive shoulder external rotation range of motion, total arc of motion) and patient-reported outcomes including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, (ASES) and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The SWA test was scored 0 to 3 points bilaterally based on number of body contacts with the wall (i.e., elbows and fingertips, posterior fingers, posterior forearm). Passive range of motion was measured with a standard goniometer. SWA scores were compared between sides at initial testing and compared between testing timepoints on the injured side. Associations among injured side clinical test values and patient-reported outcome scores were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean (SD) SWA score on the injured side was significantly lower than the uninjured side at initial testing [1.6 (1.0) vs 2.2 (1.1), p = 0.045] and significantly increased at follow-up testing [2.4 (1.0), p = 0.041]. Only SWA test score was significantly correlated with ASES (r=0.597) and WOSI (r=-0.648) scores at initial testing, and SWA test score was significantly correlated with WOSI score at follow-up testing (r=-0.611).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical utility of the SWA test is supported by distinguishing the injured and uninjured sides and having stronger associations with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":47892,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"19 10","pages":"1228-1237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.123512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The seated wall angel (SWA) is an intervention to improve upper quarter mobility but has not been described as a clinical test with scoring.
Hypothesis/ purpose: To explore the clinical utility of the SWA as a test with scoring. The authors hypothesized that SWA test scores would be lower on the injured than uninjured side, improve over time, and show stronger association with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests.
Study design: Prospective cohort.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and referred to physical therapy participated. Testing occurred after physical therapy examination (initial) and six weeks later (follow-up). Rehabilitation was not controlled. Testing included clinical tests (SWA, passive shoulder external rotation range of motion, total arc of motion) and patient-reported outcomes including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, (ASES) and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The SWA test was scored 0 to 3 points bilaterally based on number of body contacts with the wall (i.e., elbows and fingertips, posterior fingers, posterior forearm). Passive range of motion was measured with a standard goniometer. SWA scores were compared between sides at initial testing and compared between testing timepoints on the injured side. Associations among injured side clinical test values and patient-reported outcome scores were examined.
Results: Mean (SD) SWA score on the injured side was significantly lower than the uninjured side at initial testing [1.6 (1.0) vs 2.2 (1.1), p = 0.045] and significantly increased at follow-up testing [2.4 (1.0), p = 0.041]. Only SWA test score was significantly correlated with ASES (r=0.597) and WOSI (r=-0.648) scores at initial testing, and SWA test score was significantly correlated with WOSI score at follow-up testing (r=-0.611).
Conclusions: The clinical utility of the SWA test is supported by distinguishing the injured and uninjured sides and having stronger associations with patient-reported shoulder function than shoulder mobility tests.