Jump to comment:

• Measuring joint position sense
  Francois Tremblay
  Published on: 11 October 2022
• Measuring joint position sense
  Francois Tremblay
  Published on: 11 October 2022

• Published on: 11 October 2022

  Measuring joint position sense

  • Francois Tremblay, Professor
  • Other Contributors:
    • University of Ottawa, Ontario Canada

  Dear Editor

  I read with interest the study by Panics et al on the effect of proprioceptive training on joint position sense (JPS)at the knee. The authors report a significant improvement in JPS in terms of reduction in mean absolute error after the training.

  I have several concerns, however, regarding the methods used by the author to assess JPS. First, looking at Fig 1, one can ask as to how the positioning of...

  Show More

  Dear Editor

  I read with interest the study by Panics et al on the effect of proprioceptive training on joint position sense (JPS)at the knee. The authors report a significant improvement in JPS in terms of reduction in mean absolute error after the training.

  I have several concerns, however, regarding the methods used by the author to assess JPS. First, looking at Fig 1, one can ask as to how the positioning of the electrogoniometer was properly controlled between sessions and between participants. Reports have shown that even slight change in reference points with regard to anatomical landmarks can lead to substantial error in measurements (see Szulc,et al (2001) Med Sci Monit, 7(2), 312-315).

  Second, given that the leg was moved passively by one experimenter, how tactile feedback arising from contact with the skin was controlled? And what about the speed of mobilization? One can easily see the difficulty for accelerating the leg at the reported constant speed (ie., 10 deg/s) at 10 vs 80 deg in the range tested. Such factors, when not properly controlled, can lead to spurious cues influencing participants' ability to report joint angle. It is also not clear to me as to why the intervention group initially displayed poor JPS as compared to control. In the same vein, the range of errors for JPS reported by the authors (8.21 -9.78 deg) is quite at odds with the range reported in previous studies for normal young adults (typically >5 deg, see Barrett et al (1991). J Bone Joint Surg Br, 73-B(1), 53-56.).

  I think the issue of measuring the impact of proprioceptive training on proprioception is important for rehabilitation of sport injuries, but we also need to be careful as to how we measure this complex sensation.

  Francois Tremblay

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 11 October 2022

  Measuring joint position sense

  • Francois Tremblay, Professor
  • Other Contributors:
    • University of Ottawa, Ontario Canada

  Dear editor

  I read with interest the study by Panics et al on the effect of proprioceptive training on joint position sense (JPS)at the knee. The authors report a significant improvement in JPS in terms of reduction in mean absolute error after the training. I have several concerns, however, regarding the methods used by the author to assess JPS. First, looking at Fig 1, one can ask as to how the positioning of t...

  Show More

  Dear editor

  I read with interest the study by Panics et al on the effect of proprioceptive training on joint position sense (JPS)at the knee. The authors report a significant improvement in JPS in terms of reduction in mean absolute error after the training. I have several concerns, however, regarding the methods used by the author to assess JPS. First, looking at Fig 1, one can ask as to how the positioning of the electrogoniometer was properly controlled between sessions and between participants. Reports have shown that even slight change in reference points with regard to anatomical landmarks can lead to substantial error in measurements (see Szulc,et al (2001) Med Sci Monit, 7(2), 312-315). Second, given that the leg was moved passively by one experimenter, how tactile feedback arising from contact with the skin was controlled? And what about the speed of mobilization? One can easily see the difficulty for accelerating the leg at the reported constant speed (ie., 10 deg/s) at 10 vs 80 deg in the range tested. Such factors, when not properly controlled, can lead to spurious cues influencing participants' ability to report joint angle. It is also not clear to me as to why the intervention group initially displayed poor JPS as compared to control. In the same vein, the range of errors for JPS reported by the authors (8.21 -9.78 deg) is quite at odds with the range reported in previous studies for normal young adults (typically <5 deg, see Barrett et al (1991). J Bone Joint Surg Br, 73- B(1), 53-56.). I think the issue of measuring the impact of proprioceptive training on proprioception is important for rehabilitation of sport injuries, but we also need to be careful as to how we measure this complex sensation.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top