SHOULDER FUNCTION AND SHOULDER COMPLAINTS IN DANISH ELITE BADMINTON PLAYERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Shoulder function and the prevalence of shoulder complaints in elite badminton are not well described. Objective The aims of this study were to compare players who reported previous or present shoulder complaints with those players who did not. Shoulder function and shoulder problems were quantified. And the players reported influence on performance because of shoulder complaints. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting The study was taken place in the Danish National Centre of badminton, a total of 30 active elite badminton players were asked to participate. Patients (or Participants) Sixteen elite badminton players volunteered to participate. All players were full time playing with a minimum of 12 hours of badminton training per week. Interventions Self-reported shoulder injury profile was quantified for each player by use of two questionnaires (modified Fahlstrom questionnaire and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI)). Internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) shoulder strength and range of motion (ROM) were tested by use of Hand held dynamometer and Digital inclinometer. Main Outcome Measurements Based on the questionnaires, participants were divided into either complaints (COM) or non-complaints (NCOM). Results Nine players reported previous or present shoulder complaints (COM,) whereas seven players did not (NCOM,). All in the COM group reported changed training habits but only two players reported missed matches due to shoulder problems. No significant differences were observed in IR or ER shoulder strength between groups - i.e. IR: COM, 0.53±0.12 Nm vs. NCOM, 0.62±0.09 Nm and ER: COM, 0.48±0.12 Nm vs. NCOM, 0.57±0.09 Nm. No significant differences were observed in IR and ER ROM between groups; (58±8.4 vs. 60.0±9.3, and 101.8±15.7 vs. 96.4±18.3, respectively). Conclusions This study indicates that shoulder problems do exist in elite badminton. Future studies should aim to develop validated outcome measures that can identify players with shoulder problems in elite badminton.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".