Effectiveness of a Posterior Shoulder Stretching Program on University-Level Overhead Athletes: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a posterior shoulder stretch was effective in increasing internal rotation (IR) and horizontal adduction (HAd) range of motion (ROM) in overhead athletes identified as having reduced mobility. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (parallel design). SETTING: University-based sports medicine clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven university-level athletes in volleyball, swimming, and tennis, with IR ROM deficits ≥15°, were randomized into intervention or control groups. No subjects withdrew or were lost to follow-up. INTERVENTION: The intervention group performed the "sleeper stretch" daily for 8 weeks, whereas the control group performed usual activities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Independent t tests determined whether IR and HAd ROM differences between groups were significant at 8 weeks and 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance tests measured the rate of shoulder ROM change. Subject-reported shoulder pain and function were obtained at each evaluation. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups' IR and HAd ROM at 8 weeks (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively) compared with baseline (zero weeks) (P = 0.19 and P = 0.82, respectively). Significant improvements in IR were detected in the intervention group at 4 weeks (P < 0.001), whereas HAd demonstrated significant changes only at 8 weeks (P = 0.003). Reported shoulder function (P = 0.002) was different between study groups at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: Overhead, university-level athletes with an IR deficit ≥15° significantly increased their IR and HAd ROM after performing a posterior shoulder stretch for 8 weeks. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Effective management of posterior shoulder tightness through stretching may reduce the incidence of shoulder pathology in overhead athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".