Table 2

Summary of the results from the study that were not included in the meta-analysis

Shoulder flexionShoulder internal rotationShoulder external rotationShoulder total rotationShoulder horizontal adduction
Oyama et al 41 NS†NS†NS†NS†NS†NS†NS†NS†
Sakata et al34 NININININS¶NINI
Shanley et al 35
 Adolescent>13°: 5.8‡(1.6, 20.9)NS¶NS¶>15°: 4.1‡(1.2, 13.9)
Shanley et al 12
 Baseball≥25°: 4.8** (2.1, 11.3)NSNS¶
Tyler et al 37 <0°: 4.9†† (1.0 to 23.3)NS¶NS¶NS¶
Wilk et al 38 NS>5°: 2.5§ (1.1, 5.3)
Hjelm et al 40 NINININININI
Forthomme et al 14 NS¶NS¶
Walker et al 13 <93°: 24.9‡‡ (2.3, 262.6)
>100°: 23.0‡‡ (2.2, 236.8)
  • *Range of motion of the throwing arm expressed as a function of the non-throwing arm.

  • †Analysis compared risk ratio in three groups: below normal, normal and above normal (mean±1 SD used for group definition).

  • ‡Analysis based on the area under the curve of a receiving operating characteristic curve. The odds ratio of the angle cut-off that maximized sensitivity was reported because the authors believed that the cost of participating in a prevention programme is lower than the potential lack of identification of adolescent pitchers at risk of injury.

  • §Odds ratio

  • ¶Specific effect estimates were not reported in the results.

  • **Risk ratio.

  • ††Risk ratio for high school pitchers with below-normal internal rotation loss (<0°) compared with pitchers with above-normal internal rotation loss (≥20°).

  • ‡‡Unadjusted odd ratios. Odd ratios adjusted for swim distance (km): <93°: 32.5 (2.7, 389.6) p=0.02 and >100°: 35.4 (2.8, 441.9) p=0.02.

  • NI, not included in the multivariate predictive analysis; NS, not a significant predictor (odds or risk ratios not reported).