Cited by 40Connective tissue disorders researchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationOral and gingival health research

The Upper Limb Hypermobility Assessment Tool: A novel validated measure of adult joint mobility

Nicholson, Leslie L., Chan, Cliffton·2018·Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

Abstract

Background Existing measures of generalized joint hypermobility do not include commonly affected upper limb joints. Objective To evaluate the reliability of a novel clinically-applicable measure of upper limb joint mobility, its ability to discriminate between varying extents of hypermobility, identify generalized joint hypermobility, and to establish a cut-point for hypermobility classification. Design Validation of a diagnostic tool. Method Participants were sought from three groups - healthy controls, likely and known hypermobiles, and assessed using the Upper Limb Hypermobility Assessment Tool (ULHAT), Beighton score and clinical opinion. Pearson's correlation coefficient examined individual group and whole cohort relationships between upper limb hypermobility, age, gender and ethnicity. MANOVA investigated between-group differences in ULHAT scores. Median interquartile ranges and ROC Curve analysis identified the cut-off score for identification of upper limb hypermobility. Percent agreement with clinical opinion assessed the ability of the ULHAT to identify generalized joint hypermobility. Results 112 adult participants (mean age 24.3 ± 5.5years) across the three groups were assessed. Inter-rater reliability of the tool was high (ICC2,1 = 0.92). The cut-point was established at ≥7/12 (sensitivity 0.84, specificity 0.77, +LR 3.7, -LR 0.2). Upper limb hypermobility did not vary with age or ethnicity (both p > 0.12), but was greater in females (p Conclusions The 12-item UL…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.02.006

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Upper Limb Hypermobility Assessment Tool (ULHAT) is yet to be validated in children.

    “In particular, the Upper Limb Hypermobility Assessment Tool (ULHAT) [15] (yet to be validated in children) and Lower Limb Assessment Score (LLAS) [16].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholson, L. L., & Chan, C.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Nicholson, Leslie L.
Venue
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
35
Pages
38-45
ISSN
2468-7812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792955218
Cited by
40
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Musculoskeletal Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Oral and gingival health research
Keywords
generalized joint hypermobility, joint mobility assessment, Beighton score, cut-off values, inter-rater reliability, diagnostic tool validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Female, Humans, Joint Instability, Male, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Case-Control Studies, Range of Motion, Articular, Upper Extremity, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review