Abstract
Background
Understanding differential strength capability between sexes is critical in ergonomics and task design. Variations in study designs and outcome measures generates challenges in establishing workplace guidelines for strength requirements to minimize upper extremity risk for workers. The purpose of this systematic review was to collate and summarize sex differences in strength at the shoulder across movement directions and contraction types.
Methods
A total of 3,294 articles were screened from four databases (Embase, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science). Eligibility criteria included observational studies, direct measurement of muscular joint, and healthy adult participants (18–65 years old). Strength outcome measures were normalized to percentages of male outputs to allow comparisons across articles.
Results
A total of 63 studies were included within the final review. Majority of articles observed increased strength in males; the gap between male–female strength was greater in flexion and internal/external rotation, with females generating ~30% of male strength; scaption strength ratios were most consistent of the movement groups, with females generating 55–62% of male strength.
Conclusion
Sex strength differences should be considered as an important factor for workplace task design as women are more at risk for occupational-related injuries than men in equivalent strength requirements. Differences in strength were not synonymous across motions; females demonstrated increased disparity relative to male strength in horizontal flexion/extension, forward flexion and internal/external rotation. Some movements had an extremely limited pool of available studies for examination which identified critical research gaps within the literature. Collating and quantifying strength differences is critical for effective workstation design with a range of users to mitigate potential overexertion risk and musculoskeletal injury.
Keywords: Isokinetic, Isometric, Biomechanics, Ergonomics, Shoulder, Strength differences/sex
Introduction
Upper extremity use is an important part of our daily lives, but strength requirements for activities of daily living or work tasks may not be equal between sexes, representing differential capabilities. The shoulder joint is a complex and highly mobile joint that allows six degrees of movement. It is composed of four joints (glenohumeral, acromioclavicular, scapulothoracic, and sternoclavicular) that work in a rhythm to produce movements of the shoulder including flexion/extension, abduction/adduction, scaption, horizontal flexion/extension (i.e., horizontal adduction/abduction), and internal/external rotation. Various positions of the shoulder result in different strength and directional outcomes of the arm and shoulder. As well, certain positions lead to various outcomes such as rapidly fatiguing the musculature surrounding the shoulder. Biological differences between females and males play a major role in the risk factors of exposures to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) (Hooftman et al., 2009). This WMSD risk varies depending on the body area affected; males are reported to be at higher risk for low back injuries while women report more neck-shoulder injuries (Hooftman et al., 2009). Multiple sources report that males consistently possess increased upper extremity strength compared to females (Ivey, Calhoun & Rusche, 1985; Singh & Karpovich, 1968; Vianna, Oliveira & Araujo, 2007). Strength differences are typically assessed using end-effector values such as force or torque. For the purpose of this article, strength is defined using end-effector outcomes such as force or torque, and is measured as either isometric (i.e., static) or isokinetic (i.e., dynamic) movements within a single plane (i.e., flexion, adduction, etc.). Upper extremity strength tests have demonstrated a trend of lower strength capabilities of females during identical tasks compared to males, reporting 42–47% of male strength on average when completing various upper body strength tests (Singh & Karpovich, 1968). These differences may be based in physiology; males have larger muscle cross sectional areas (Haizlip, Harrison & Leinwand, 2015) and have ~75% more upper body muscle mass on average (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009). Anthropometric and muscle fibre characteristic differences between sexes justify significant differences of posture, strength, and fatigue resistance that may contribute to differences in functional capacity. This may represent a key factor demonstrating the differences of neck and shoulder WMSDs (Côté, 2012). Given the disparities in magnitude of male-female strength across upper extremity joints, a representative average is likely not specific enough for ergonomic consideration.
Understanding force capability is critical for digital modeling and effective workplace design. Biomechanists, ergonomists, engineers, and work task designers can leverage strength data information to ensure tasks incorporate capability requirements for both sexes and highlight directional differences at the shoulder. Digital human models (DHMs) are prevalent in physical ergonomics as a tool to proactively assess job demands and provide design considerations. To improve the fidelity of workplace simulations with DHMs, models need to provide valid posture and motion prediction (Chaffin, 2005). Many DHMs will calculate biomechanical loads from strength data and provide context relative to population specific strength or estimated tissue tolerances. The literature surrounding shoulder strength differences between males and females in the workplace is limited and has never been synthesized into a review.
As tools continue to improve and incorporate both sexes, a need exists in effectively quantifying these outputs; however, the range of tools and techniques used to date has made interpretation challenging. Muscular strength has been defined as a measurement of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) and the maximum force produced against an external resistance (Schoenfeld et al., 2021). Females have been demonstrated to produce less torque and power during a functional work task compared to males, even when normalized to perceived work intensity (Esmail, Bhambhani & Brintnell, 1995). To date, there has been substantial variability in the methods used to quantify sex differences in strength, including end effector forces in Newtons (N) (Collins & O’Sullivan, 2018; Coury et al., 1998; Hills & Bohannon, 1992; McKay et al., 2017; Yates et al., 1980), torques in Newton-meters (Nm) (Faber, Hansen & Christensen, 2006; Kim et al., 2009; Lannersten et al., 1993; MacDonell & Keir, 2005; Roy et al., 2009), or alternative outcome measures, such as those normalized to participant body mass (Marcondes et al., 2019; Riemann et al., 2010). These differences between outcome measures when paired with methodological techniques presents a challenge to ergonomists, work task designers and ergonomic tools; development of a review to simplify these methodological differences and identify strength differences could prove beneficial to these parties. The purpose of this work was to critically assess the current literature and complete a systematic review to establish strength differences between sexes at the shoulder.
Methods
Search strategy
A search was completed by considering the main topic of interest and selecting relevant keywords to efficiently extract articles from each database. Searches were conducted from four databases: Embase, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The search consisted of three parts; identification of the shoulder as the relevant body region, combinations of terms commonly used to describe strength, and inclusion of both sexes. Year-bounds were not set for this search. The search strategy was critiqued and revised by the institutional Library staff to formulate a finalized search string (Table 1). Search strategies were completed with the assistance of the institutional Librarian services and all database searches were completed on June 13, 2022. The study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022339026).
Table 1. Search string entries for all databases.
| Embase: 1,980 | Medline: 1,007 | SCOPUS: 439 | Web of science: 1,131 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept 1: Upper extremity |
Shoulder Exp shoulder/ |
Shoulder Exp shoulder |
(shoulder) | Shoulder |
| Concept 2: Strength |
(Muscle or joint or isometric or isokinetic or isotonic or dynamic) (Strength or force or moment or torque) Exp Muscle Contraction/ Exp Muscle strength/ Exp Exercise/ |
(Muscle or joint or isometric or isokinetic or isotonic or dynamic) (Strength or force or moment or torque) Exp Muscle Contraction/ or exp Muscle Strength/ or exp Physical Exertion |
(Muscle AND strength OR muscle AND force OR muscle AND moment OR muscle AND torque OR joint AND strength OR joint AND force OR joint AND moment OR joint AND torque OR isometric AND strength OR isometric AND moment OR isometric AND torque OR isokinetic AND strength OR isokinetic AND force OR isokinetic AND moment OR isokinetic AND torque OR isotonic AND strength OR isotonic AND force OR isotonic AND moment OR isotonic AND torque OR dynamic AND strength OR dynamic AND force OR dynamic AND moment OR dynamic AND torque) | (Muscle or joint or isometric or isokinetic or isotonic or dynamic) AND (Strength or force or moment or torque) |
| Concept 3: Sex differences |
(Woman or women or female*) (Man or men or male*) (sex or gender) |
(Woman or women or female*) (Man or men or male*) (sex or gender) |
(Woman or women or female*) (Man or men or male*) |
(Woman or women or female*) AND (Man or men or male*) OR (sex or gender) |
Note:
indicates the use of a special character in search string
Eligibility criteria
All extracted articles were screened for eligibility to be included in this review. Eligibility criteria included randomized control trials, controlled studies, cohort studies, pilot studies, and theses. Studies were considered if they included healthy participants with no previous upper extremity injury or deformity between the ages of 18–65 years old. This study focused on strength differences of adults and those within the “working population” range since the goal of the article is to utilize this information in future ergonomic task design. Only studies measuring muscular strength directly (e.g., Newtons (N), Newton-meters (Nm), kilograms (kg), etc.) were deemed eligible. Exclusion criteria comprised of books, editorials, dissertations, or if the article was not published in English. Further studies were excluded if the following parameters were present: incorrect study design (i.e., did not perform a shoulder-isolated isometric or isokinetic task within a single plane, or, results not split by sex), wrong outcomes (i.e., did not directly measure muscular strength), and wrong patient population.
Methodological approach
A multi-step screening process was utilized to derive the final selection of articles for full-text analysis and data extraction. All database searches were completed by a single researcher (AC) on the same day followed by a double-blind screening from two researchers (TK and CL). Articles that met the search term criteria were extracted from each database and collated into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) to manage the screening process. Following removal of duplicates, title/abstract screening was completed independently by the two reviewers according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Conflicts regarding inclusion/exclusion decisions were resolved with a meeting between the two reviewers and MH until all disagreements were settled. MH acted as the referee between all disagreements. Following initial screening, eligible articles underwent full-text screening by the same reviewers with identical inclusion/exclusion criteria and conflict resolution methods as the first round. All articles that passed the second round of screening were the final articles included for data extraction. A PRISMA flow diagram outlines the inclusion strategy (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart describing the screening process and inclusion of eligible articles for this review.
Assessment of methodological quality of risk of bias
All included studies were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies (ROBINS-I) (Table 2). The assessment consisted of seven risk domains: bias due to confounding, participation population, intervention classifications, intended intervention deviations, absence of outcome data, measurements of outcomes, and reported results selections. Each study was assigned a level of bias per domain; escalating ratings were described as low (L), moderate (M), and serious (S). Bias ratings were collated, and article risk of bias was based on the highest rating within the seven domains.
Table 2. Risk of bias assessments using ROBINS-I for included articles.
Note:
L , Low risk; M, Moderate risk; H, High risk; article scores were represented as the highest score received across domains.
Results
Article selection
4,557 articles were extracted from the initial database retrieval for screening (Embase (1,980 articles), Medline (1,007 articles), SCOPUS (439 articles), and Web of Science (1,131 articles)). A total of 3,294 articles were screened with duplicates removed, where then 182 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility based on the details shown above. From this, a total of 63 articles were included and used for the assessment of the results. These articles exhibit experimental and observational studies that isolate movements of the shoulder to directly measure joint strength. A detailed flowchart of article screening can be found in Fig. 1.
All literature criteria for inclusion included peer-reviewed journal articles and conference writings/proceedings. A study was considered eligible if they contained a participant population without musculoskeletal injury or disease and contained both male and female participants within the working-age range (18–65 years). Articles were excluded if the participant pool had a chronic disease or musculoskeletal injury to the torso or upper extremity, contained participants from a single-sex, were a systematic review, or were not written in English. Participant pools using specific populations (e.g. an athletic group) have been identified and are outlined within the supplementary appendices, where extracted variables from each article are included in depth. The current work did not include multi-joint movements such as pushing or pressing motions as they may have been limited by strength outside of the shoulder complex, but represents a potentially valuable insight into human capacity. Detailed results of the variables extracted from the included studies can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Table S1).
Body region/movements
Articles included in this analysis were subdivided into nine sections based on planar movements: flexion (n = 25), extension (n = 14), scaption (n = 2), abduction (n = 34), adduction (n = 18), horizontal flexion/extension (n = 2), internal rotation (n = 36), and external rotation (n = 37). In 35 articles examined isometric movements, 20 articles examined isokinetic movements, and nine articles examined both types of movements.
Shoulder flexion/extension is known as raising/lowering a straight arm up in the sagittal plane, abduction/adduction is raising/lowering a straight arm up the frontal plane of the body, and scaption is raising a straight arm up in a diagonal position ~40° anterior of adduction. Horizontal flexion/extension is known as moving a straight arm medial to lateral to medial while in front of the body. Lastly, internal/external rotation produces a rotating movement of a straight arm, leading to the supination and pronation of the hand. All movements can be seen in Fig. 2. Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Table S1).
Figure 2. Representative motions for the nine shoulder planar movements included in the review.
Measurement methodology
Multiple measurement tools were used to assess shoulder strength throughout the studies (Appendix Table S1). A total of 38 studies used an isokinetic or isometric dynamometer while 14 studies used a hand-held dynamometer. A small number of studies used alternative measurement tools, including gauge dynamometers (2), an electromechanical force transducer (1), an electromagnetic dynamometer (1), a load cell (1), a torque meter (2), a myometer (1), a quantitative muscle assessment system (1), a manual muscle tester (1), and a custom-made resting equipment (1).
Multiple strength outcome measures were observed across articles (Appendix Table S1). The most common measurement units used were Newtons (N), Newton-meters (Nm), and kilograms (kg) when measuring shoulder isometric and isokinetic strength. Two alternate measurement units described in the literature included strength normalized to percentage of body mass, and foot-pounds of torque (Appendix Table S1). The majority of the movement types used similar measurement units across all studies. Flexion and extension, adduction and abduction, and internal and external shoulder rotation all used N, kilogram per centimeter (kg-cm), Nm, foot-pounds (ft-lbs), and percent of body mass. Other movements such as scaption and horizontal flexion and extension used more consistent measurement units, using only Newtons, Newton-meters per kilogram, and pounds. Due to the variation of outcome measurements, strength data was normalized to a male: female percentage for comparison. Within each study, female results were divided by male results, then multiplied by 100 to conclude a percentage of strength for comparison.
Directional outcomes
Most movement directions demonstrated similar outcome ranges. Each movement direction’s outcome range based on the articles included in this systematic review can be found in Fig. 3. Outcomes described in Fig. 3 represent all shoulder joint movements demonstrated within the literature. The numbers shown in the chart are representative of the number of studies that examined each of the movements shown. For example, 37 articles had participants perform movements using external rotation of the shoulder. The lines represent the range of female strength that was measured in each of the articles that were examined. When examining abduction of the shoulder across all 34 articles, female strength was represented as 30–130% of male strength, with different tasks for each of these movement patterns.
Figure 3. Representative outcome ranges for shoulder articulations included in this systematic review.
Adduction and abduction
Generally, males generated greater adduction and abduction strength, with females typically producing ~40–80% of male abduction strength and ~45–65% of adduction strength. Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Tables S2 and S3). Obtained female strengths ranged from 29–127% (Cahalan, Johnson & Chao, 1991; Magnusson et al., 1995) and 43–107% for abduction (Fig. 4A) and adduction (Fig. 4B), respectively (Cahalan, Johnson & Chao, 1991; Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020). For abduction and adduction during isokinetic motions, females produced 40–70% of male strength when working at 30, 60, 120 and 180 degrees/second (Carrascosa-Sanchez et al., 1999; McMaster, Long & Caiozzo, 1992; Shklar & Dvir, 1995). Three articles had female abduction strength exceed male abduction strength (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Magnusson et al., 1995; Murgia et al., 2018). Two instances occurred during isometric abduction: with generated female strengths of 108% of males (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020), and females resulting in 127% of male strength (Appendix Table S2) (Magnusson et al., 1995). One instance occurred in an older population during isokinetic abduction at 60°/s with females generating 119% of male strength (Appendix Table S2) (Murgia et al., 2018). In isometric adduction contractions, females produced 45–60% of male strength (Holzbaur et al., 2007; Meldrum et al., 2007; Murray et al., 1985). A single study observed female adduction strength exceeding male adduction strength, with females producing 107% of males (48.20 ± 16.15 lbs for females, 44.93 ± 16.09 lbs for males) (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020) (Appendix Table S3).
Figure 4. Sex strength differences of abduction (left) and adduction (right).
Female strength metrics ranging from (A) 29–127% and (B) 43–107% of male strength, respectively. Articles in this review demonstrate that female strength centralized at ~40–80% (abduction) and ~45–65% (adduction) of male strength.
Scaption
Across conditions, females generated 55–62% of male scaption strength (Fig. 5) (Alizadehkhaiyat et al., 2014; Eren et al., 2019). Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Table S4). Sex differences were smaller in the empty can test (88.92 ± 23.96 N vs. 54.95 ± 14.18 N; 62% of male strength) than the palm down test (98.89 ± 25.99 N vs. 54.26 ± 10.8 N; 55%) (Eren et al., 2019) (Appendix Table S4). Other work observed females generating 61% of male scaption strength (Alizadehkhaiyat et al., 2014).
Figure 5. Sex strength differences of scaption.
Female strength metrics ranging from 55–62% of male strength.
Flexion and extension
Males demonstrated greater shoulder torque than females in flexion and extension across most articles. Females typically produced ~40–70% of flexion strength (Fig. 6A) and ~40–60% of extension strength (Fig. 6B) of males; obtained female strengths ranged from 33–107% (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Khalaf & Parnianpour, 2001) and 38–113% for flexion and extension, respectively (Hughes et al., 1999; Khalaf & Parnianpour, 2001). Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Tables S5 and S6). A single isometric study demonstrated females exceeding male flexion (Appendix Table S5) and extension (Appendix Table S6) strength; flexion strengths were 39.39 ± 10.85 and 36.93 ± 10.82 lbs and 54.41 ± 14.57 vs. 53.25 ± 14.52 (Nm) in extension for males and females, respectively (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020). Isokinetic flexion articles tended to report greater disparities in reported strength compared to isometric articles. Isometric articles demonstrated male and female flexion strength of 22.4 ± 4.7 kg and 9.8 ± 3.5 kg respectively (Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt, 2015) compared to isokinetic flexion articles which demonstrated male and female flexion strength of 102.3 ± 7.4 and 72.4 ± 8.2 % body mass at 60°/s (Marcondes et al., 2019).
Figure 6. Sex strength differences of flexion (left) and extension (right).
Female strength metrics ranging from (A) 33–107% and (B) 38–113% of male strength, respectively. Articles in this review demonstrate that female strength centralized at ~40–70% (flexion) and ~40–60% (extension) of male strength.
Horizontal flexion and extension
Males generated increased horizontal flexion/extension strength in most included articles. On average, females produced roughly 40–55% of horizontal flexion strength (Fig. 7A) and 40–50% of horizontal extension of males (Fig. 7B). Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Tables S7 and S8). Obtained female strengths ranged from 36–104% (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt, 2015) and 36–97% (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt, 2015) for horizontal flexion and extension respectively. A single isometric study observed elevated female horizontal flexion strength relative to other articles, with females generating 97% of male horizontal flexion strength, when normalized (female = 43.59 ± 14.95 lbs; males = 41.80 ± 14.90 lbs) (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020). Only isometric force data was presented for horizontal flexion and extension (Appendix Tables S7 and S8).
Figure 7. Sex strength differences of horizontal flexion (left) and horizontal extension (right).
Female strength metrics ranging from (A) 36–104% and (B) 36–97% of male strength, respectively. Articles in this review demonstrate that female strength centralized at ~40–55% (horizontal flexion) and ~40–50% (horizontal extension) of male strength.
Internal/external rotation
On average, females typically produced ~40–70% of male internal rotation strength (Fig. 8A) and ~45–80% of external rotation strength (Fig. 8B). Expanded details can be found in the supplementary reading (Appendix Tables S9 and S10). Obtained female strengths ranged from 32–105% (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt, 2015) and 28–103% (Cahalan, Johnson & Chao, 1991; Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020) for internal rotation and external rotation, respectively. During isometric movements, females consistently demonstrated approximately half the strength outputs compared to males (Lannersten et al., 1993; Roy et al., 2009). Males generated external rotation torques of 26.4 ± 8.6 Nm compared to 14.9 ± 3.4 Nm from females (Lannersten et al., 1993). During internal rotation and external rotation, females generated 53% and 57% of male strength (Appendix Tables S9 and S10) (Roy et al., 2009). Isokinetic testing used in included studies ranged from 60–180 degrees/s; as speeds increased, strength outputs decreased, with similar decreases between sexes (Cahalan, Johnson & Chao, 1991; Marcondes et al., 2019; Shklar & Dvir, 1995).
Figure 8. Sex strength differences of internal rotation (left) and external rotation (right).
Female strength metrics ranging from (A) 32–105% and (B) 28–103% of male strength, respectively. Articles in this review demonstrate that female strength centralized at ~40–70% (internal rotation) and ~45–80% (external rotation) of male strength.
Bias and quality of assessments
The methodological quality of each study was represented by a score of low (L), moderate (M), or serious risk of bias (S), with an overall bias rating given for each article. The methodological quality scores and rating of bias is located in Table 2. Risk of bias assessments of each article conducted using the ROBINS-I identified six articles having a moderate risk of bias in the domain of selection of participants (Danneskiold-Samsøe et al., 2009; Ellenbecker & Roetert, 2003; Faber, Hansen & Christensen, 2006; Harbin, Leyh & Harbin, 2020; Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Magnusson et al., 1995; Pontillo & Sennett, 2020).
Discussion
Anatomical and biomechanical sex differences exist within the shoulder that identify strength inequalities between males and females. The primary objective of this systematic review was to examine strength differences between sexes at the shoulder for various movement direction and contraction types. The heterogeneity in methodologies and outcome measures across articles prevented ease of comparison or traditional statistical analysis and may have been a factor in the substantial ranges of relative strengths when normalized to percentages of males. This review provides strength ranges across all articles, typically demonstrating that on average females generate lower strength in flexion (57%), extension (56%), abduction (59%), adduction (55%), scaption (59%), horizontal flexion (55%), horizontal extension (51%), and internal rotation (56%), and external rotation (60%) compared to male strength percentages. Specific articles encompassing each directional movement type can be seen in more detail in the Appendix Tables S3–S10. The majority of the included articles concluded that males generated increased strength compared to females across most joint movements examined regardless of age, weight, height, and athletic experience. Ergonomist and workplace designers should acknowledge the decrease in relative strength based on the movement direction and contraction type to improve occupational workplace guidelines. Although with articles typically focused on flexion/extension, abduction/adduction, and internal/external rotation, workplace and task design should account for the lack of data within other movement directions and contraction types when considering the decrease in relative strength between sexes.
Disparities in strength between sexes were slightly larger in flexion, internal rotation and external rotation. Across movements, obtained female strengths ranged from 28% to 127% of male strength with some strength equivalencies. Abduction, flexion, extension, horizontal flexion, horizontal extension, internal rotation, and external rotation presented similar relative female strength of ~30 to >100%. Improved female relative strength was observed in adduction and scaption, with outcome measured ranging from ~45% to >100%. Scaption presented the smallest range for female strength, where females generated 55–62% of male strength; abduction presented the largest range of 29–127% of male strength across all articles (Fig. 3). Few exceptions demonstrated an increased female strength compared to males across movements; each of these studies included potential bias in the results. One article measuring isometric strength presented participant selection bias when recruiting, as participants had to be graduate level competitive swimmers from a single New York metropolitan area (Magnusson et al., 1995). Another article measuring isokinetic strength only presented greater female strength results in their older adult participant sample, suggesting possible anthropometric changes with aging (Murgia et al., 2018). A single article demonstrated greater female strength across all joint movements (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020), but participants were recruited from circus studios across the United States with 157 females and 30 males recruited; differences in participant pool from a unique population may have affected their results. Other than these few exceptions, majority of the results demonstrated greater strength in males compared to females across movements.
Anatomical and biomechanical studies identify increased reporting of neck-shoulder symptoms in females. With the same job responsibilities, women have a higher risk for occupational related injuries due discrepancies between the workplace and their anthropometric and physiological differences (Treaster & Burr, 2004). Most workplaces are designed based on male anthropometry, creating disadvantages for smaller individuals, who are typically female (Treaster & Burr, 2004). These ill-fitting stations tend to generate various movement compensations, leading to increases in postural strain (Treaster & Burr, 2004). Increased laxity of the female shoulder compared to males can leads to an increased sensitivity to tendon overstretching resulting in an increased risk of instability and injury (Maier et al., 2022). Task demand and design should consider force production differences at the various task postures. For the same task, women must use increased muscle activity, causing them to work at efforts closer to their maximal capacity (Maier et al., 2022). These factors along with the strength differences of each movement direction should be considered as differences in work-related functional capacity imply the higher risk of shoulder injury development (Maier et al., 2022).
Included articles predominantly focused on a small number of isometric and isokinetic movements, highlighting research scarcity in some areas. The majority of articles included were focused on ab/adduction, flexion/extension, and internal/external rotation, suggesting large research gaps in scaption, horizontal flexion, and horizontal extension movements. The sparsity of articles for these movements may cause ambiguity towards overarching results and should be considered with caution. Horizontal flexion and horizontal extension movements presented lower ranges compared to the other movements with most results presenting as ~36–50% female-male strength (Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula, 2020; Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt, 2015), but all values were extracted from a single article and should be interpreted with caution. Articles presenting isometric results demonstrated higher relative female strength compared to isokinetic results of abduction, adduction, flexion, extension, internal rotation, and external rotation. Similarities of isokinetic speed selections were limited. The majority of the isokinetic movement articles examined strength at 60°/s and 180°/s; the 12 other isokinetic movement speeds had a limited amount (<3) of articles that used the same methodology, preventing direct comparisons. It is apparent that sex-based analyses are necessary to improve the understanding of work-related strength differences and how it affects exposures to musculoskeletal disorders.
Understanding sex differences in upper extremity capability is a critical aspect of the advancement of workplace design, and allows ergonomists and engineers to create workspaces that are ideal for all individuals and advances ergonomic guidelines and standards. When we examine the strengths demonstrated by both males and females during various shoulder movements, females demonstrated approximately of 50% of male strength across multiple articles during elevation/depression and flexion/extension movements (Shklar & Dvir, 1995; Reid et al., 1989; van Meeteren, Roebroeck & Stam, 2002). This becomes problematic for female employees, especially during lifting tasks, as there will be an increased risk of injury or the inability to properly perform tasks. If the task involves pushing or pulling a cart with a load of 50 kg or more, females reported pain or injury six times more frequently than males (Hoozemans et al., 2002). It was also shown that females produce less torque and power during a functional work task compared to males, even when normalized to perceived work intensity (Esmail, Bhambhani & Brintnell, 1995). When both males and females were working in a rubber plant factory and performing the same task, posture and movement stayed relatively similar, however, females had greater shoulder muscle activation (Nordander et al., 2008). The information demonstrated in this study will assist in updating ergonomic guidelines to better understand sex differences and incorporate them into best practices design.
Limitations
There are limitations to be considered for this review. A high variability of the methodology of strength measures limited comparisons of results. Postural differences and isokinetic speed selections may confound interpretation of these findings. The lack of normalization to body weight within research articles increased heterogeneity of results preventing comparison of results; all article results were scaled to a percentage of male strength to normalize force metrics for the systematic review. Disparities in the number of articles included for each force direction may have affected outcomes and demonstrates a strong need for additional research. Future articles should consider normalizing results to body weight for proper comparison of sexes or replicating past strength comparison articles to reduce the force metrics introduced and increase the quantity of articles focusing on movements lacking research. Additionally, this work does not consider demographic differences such as race, employment, socioeconomic status, etc. Articles including injured populations were not examined within this review. Limb dominance was not considered as a factor related to upper limb strength within this review, future articles should consider investigating this factor. When available, both dominant and non-dominant information have been identified and included in the supplementary tables (Appendix Tables S2–S10). Outcome strength differences of injured populations may increase or decrease with history of injury. There is a need to continue to examine strength differences of various demographics and movement types.
Conclusion
The purpose of this systematic review was to critically examine the strength differences between sexes for the shoulder joint of the upper extremity. Males have shown to generate more strength compared to females across most joint movements examined regardless of age, weight, height, and athletic experience. Although some studies identified greater female strength compared to males across movements, each included potential sources of bias which may have influenced the results. For this review, all results were normalized to a percentage of male strength due to the lack of homogeneity of research metrics. Relative female strength was generally higher in adduction and scaption; strength ratios did not appear to alter substantially in other directions. Female relative strength was generally higher in adduction and scaption; strength ratios did not appear to alter substantially in other directions. Discrepancies in force directions, movement types, and movement speeds may have affected outcomes demonstrating a strong need for additional research. This systematic review provides biomechanists, ergonomists, and work task engineers collated data that can be leveraged to design safe workspaces and tasks, as well as highlighting locations of scarcity within the research field. Future ergonomic task and/or workplace design should consider these directional effects in design.
Supplemental Information
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ian D. Gordon and the Brock University Library for their expertise with evidence synthesis, database search term development, knowledge translation, and support for this research review.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by an NSERC Discovery Grant held by Michael W.R. Holmes (RGPIN 2023-04488). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
Michael W. R. Holmes is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Author Contributions
Tamar D. Kritzer performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Cameron J. Lang performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.
Michael W. R. Holmes conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Alan C. Cudlip conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw outcome data are available in the Supplemental Tables.
References
- Alizadehkhaiyat et al. (2014).Alizadehkhaiyat O, Hawkes DH, Kemp GJ, Howard A, Frostick SP. Muscle strength and its relationship with skeletal muscle mass indices as determined by segmental bio-impedance analysis. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2014;114(1):177–185. doi: 10.1007/s00421-013-2764-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, Thomas & Bohannon (1996).Andrews AW, Thomas MW, Bohannon RW. Normative values for isometric muscle force measurements obtained with hand-held dynamometers. Physical Therapy. 1996;76(3):248–259. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.3.248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aydin et al. (2001).Aydin T, Yildiz Y, Yildiz C, Kalyon TA. The stretch-shortening cycle of the internal rotators muscle group measured by isokinetic dynamometry. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2001;41(3):371–379. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bäckman et al. (1995).Bäckman E, Johansson V, Häger B, Sjöblom P, Henriksson KG. Isometric muscle strength and muscular endurance in normal persons aged between 17 and 70 years. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1995;27(2):109–117. doi: 10.2340/165019772109117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barnekow-Bergkvist et al. (2004).Barnekow-Bergkvist M, Aasa U, Ängquist K-A, Johansson H. Prediction of development of fatigue during a simulated ambulance work task from physical performance tests. Ergonomics. 2004;47(11):1238–1250. doi: 10.1080/00140130410001714751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barrenetxea-Garcia et al. (2019).Barrenetxea-Garcia J, Torres-Unda J, Esain I, Gil SM. Anthropometry and isokinetic strength in water polo: are young players ready to compete on adult teams? Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2019;27(4):325–332. doi: 10.3233/IES-192189. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Buśko & Gajewski (2011).Buśko K, Gajewski J. Muscle strength and power of elite female and male swimmers. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity. 2011;3(1):13. doi: 10.2478/v10131-011-0001-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cahalan, Johnson & Chao (1991).Cahalan TD, Johnson ME, Chao EY. Shoulder strength analysis using the Cybex II isokinetic dynamometer. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976–2007) 1991;271:249–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carrascosa-Sanchez et al. (1999).Carrascosa-Sanchez J, Gomez Pellico L, Slocker de Arce A, Clemente de Arriba C, Fernandez-Camacho J. Isokinetic handedness in the abduction-adduction movement of shoulder. European Journal of Anatomy. 1999;3:41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Carrascosa-Sanchez et al. (2023).Carrascosa-Sanchez J, Slocker A, Rodríguez R, Clemente C, Garcia J, Fernandez J, Gomez-Pellico L. Isokinetic relations at the shoulder joint. European Journal of Anatomy. 2023;4(2):121–125. [Google Scholar]
- Chaffin (2005).Chaffin DB. Improving digital human modelling for proactive ergonomics in design. Ergonomics. 2005;48(5):478–491. doi: 10.1080/00140130400029191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chezar et al. (2013).Chezar A, Berkovitch Y, Haddad M, Keren Y, Soudry M, Rosenberg N. Normal isometric strength of rotator cuff muscles in adults. Bone & Joint Research. 2013;2(10):214–219. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.210.2000202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Côté (2012).Côté JN. A critical review on physical factors and functional characteristics that may explain a sex/gender difference in work-related neck/shoulder disorders. Ergonomics. 2012;55(2):173–182. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2011.586061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Collins & O’Sullivan (2018).Collins JD, O’Sullivan L. Age and sex related differences in shoulder abduction fatigue. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2018;19(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2191-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cools et al. (2016).Cools AMJ, Vanderstukken F, Vereecken F, Duprez M, Heyman K, Goethals N, Johansson F. Eccentric and isometric shoulder rotator cuff strength testing using a hand-held dynamometer: reference values for overhead athletes. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA. 2016;24(12):3838–3847. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3755-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coury et al. (1998).Coury HJCG, Kumar S, Rodgher S, Narayan Y. Measurements of shoulder adduction strength in different postures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1998;22(3):195–206. doi: 10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00015-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Danneskiold-Samsøe et al. (2009).Danneskiold-Samsøe B, Bartels E, Bülow P, Lund H, Stockmarr A, Holm C, Wätjen I, Appleyard M, Bliddal H. Isokinetic and isometric muscle strength in a healthy population with special reference to age and gender. Acta Physiologica. 2009;197(s673):1–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2009.02022.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Douma et al. (2014).Douma RK, Soer R, Krijnen WP, Reneman M, van der Schans CP. Reference values for isometric muscle force among workers for the Netherlands: a comparison of reference values. BMC Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2014;6(1):10. doi: 10.1186/2052-1847-6-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ellenbecker & Roetert (2003).Ellenbecker T, Roetert EP. Age specific isokinetic glenohumeral internal and external rotation strength in elite junior tennis players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2003;6(1):63–70. doi: 10.1016/S1440-2440(03)80009-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eren et al. (2019).Eren I, Canbulat N, Çobanoğlu E, Sevinç T, Mısırlıoğlu TÖ, Seyahi A, Demirhan M. Kinesio taping has no immediate effect on shoulder isometric scapation strength: a study of healthy participants. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2019;27(2):83–87. doi: 10.3233/IES-182166. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Esmail, Bhambhani & Brintnell (1995).Esmail S, Bhambhani Y, Brintnell S. Gender differences in work performance on the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment work simulator. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1995;49(5):405–411. doi: 10.5014/ajot.49.5.405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Faber, Hansen & Christensen (2006).Faber A, Hansen K, Christensen H. Muscle strength and aerobic capacity in a representative sample of employees with and without repetitive monotonous work. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2006;79(1):33–41. doi: 10.1007/s00420-005-0025-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferreira, Górski & Gajewski (2020).Ferreira A, Górski M, Gajewski J. Gender differences and relationships between upper extremity muscle strength, lower limb power and shuttle velocity in forehand smash and jump smash in badminton. Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics. 2020;22(4):41–49. doi: 10.37190/ABB-01643-2020-02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guirelli et al. (2021).Guirelli AR, dos Santos JM, Cabral EMG, Pinto JPC, De Lima GA, Felicio LR. Relationship between upper limb physical performance tests and muscle strength of scapular, shoulder and spine stabilizers: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2021;27(1):612–619. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hageman et al. (1989).Hageman PA, Mason DK, Rydlund KW, Humpal SA. Effects of position and speed on eccentric and concentric isokinetic testing of the shoulder rotators. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 1989;11(2):64–69. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1989.11.2.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haizlip, Harrison & Leinwand (2015).Haizlip KM, Harrison BC, Leinwand LA. Sex-based differences in skeletal muscle kinetics and fiber-type composition. Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) 2015;30(1):30–39. doi: 10.1152/physiol.00024.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harbin, Leyh & Harbin (2020).Harbin G, Leyh C, Harbin A. Upper extremity strength: normative reference data among uninjured employees. Work (Reading, Mass.) 2020;67(4):979–991. doi: 10.3233/WOR-203348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harbo, Brincks & Andersen (2012).Harbo T, Brincks J, Andersen H. Maximal isokinetic and isometric muscle strength of major muscle groups related to age, body mass, height, and sex in 178 healthy subjects. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2012;112(1):267–275. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-1975-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hartsell (1998).Hartsell HD. The effects of body position and stabilization on isokinetic torque ratios for the shoulder rotators. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 1998;7(4):161–170. doi: 10.3233/IES-1998-0032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hill, Pramanik & McGregor (2005).Hill AM, Pramanik S, McGregor AH. Isokinetic dynamometry in assessment of external and internal axial rotation strength of the shoulder: comparison of two positions. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2005;13(3):187–195. doi: 10.3233/IES-2005-0203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hills & Bohannon (1992).Hills M, Bohannon RW. Shoulder extension strength is influenced by elbow position. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 1992;2(3):129–132. doi: 10.3233/IES-1992-2305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Holzbaur et al. (2007).Holzbaur KR, Delp SL, Gold GE, Murray WM. Moment-generating capacity of upper limb muscles in healthy adults. Journal of Biomechanics. 2007;40(11):2442–2449. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hooftman et al. (2009).Hooftman WE, van der Beek AJ, Bongers PM, van Mechelen W. Is there a gender difference in the effect of work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors on musculoskeletal symptoms and related sickness absence? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2009;35(2):85–95. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hoozemans et al. (2002).Hoozemans MJ, van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MH, van der Woude LH, van Dijk FJ. Pushing and pulling in association with low back and shoulder complaints. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2002;59(10):696–702. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.10.696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huberman, Scales & Vallabhajosula (2020).Huberman C, Scales M, Vallabhajosula S. Shoulder range of motion and strength characteristics in circus acrobats. Medical Problems of Performing Artists. 2020;35(3):145–152. doi: 10.21091/mppa.2020.3025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hughes et al. (1999).Hughes RE, Johnson ME, O’driscoll SW, An K-N. Age-related changes in normal isometric shoulder strength. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1999;27(5):651–657. doi: 10.1177/03635465990270051801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ivey, Calhoun & Rusche (1985).Ivey FM, Calhoun JH, Rusche K. Normal values for isokinetic testing of shoulder strength. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1985;16(2):127. doi: 10.1249/00005768-198404000-00108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Khalaf & Parnianpour (2001).Khalaf KA, Parnianpour M. A normative database of isokinetic upper-extremity joint strengths: towards the evaluation of dynamic human performance. Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications. 2001;13(02):79–92. doi: 10.4015/S101623720100011X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kim et al. (2009).Kim HM, Teefey SA, Zelig A, Galatz LM, Keener JD, Yamaguchi K. Shoulder strength in asymptomatic individuals with intact compared with torn rotator cuffs. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American. 2009;91(2):289–296. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koski & McGill (1994).Koski AV, McGill SM. Dynamic shoulder flexion strength: for use in occupational risk analysis and clinical assessment. Clinical Biomechanics. 1994;9(2):99–104. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(94)90031-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kramer & Ng (1995).Kramer JF, Ng LR. Concurrent validity of isokinetic dynamometer and hand-held dynamometer protocols in assessment of isometric shoulder rotation strength. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 1995;5(1):37–42. doi: 10.3233/IES-1995-5109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kramer & Ng (1996).Kramer JF, Ng LR. Static and dynamic strength of the shoulder rotators in healthy, 45-to 75-year-old men and women. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 1996;24(1):11–18. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1996.24.1.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lannersten et al. (1993).Lannersten L, Harms-Ringdahl K, Schüldt K, Ekholm J. Isometric strength in flexors, abductors, and external rotators of the shoulder. Clinical Biomechanics. 1993;8(5):235–242. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(93)90031-C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lassek & Gaulin (2009).Lassek WD, Gaulin SJC. Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle mass in men: relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2009;30(5):322–328. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lindström et al. (2003).Lindström B, Waling K, Sundelin G, Ahlgren C. Test-retest reliability of biomechanical output and subjective ratings of exertion in isometric and isokinetic shoulder forward flexion in healthy subjects. Advances in Physiotherapy. 2003;5(4):169–178. doi: 10.1080/14038190310017606. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lorenzo & Nunez (2021).Lorenzo PH, Nunez R. Normal baseline values for isometric shoulder strength in scaption for healthy filipino individuals in the 20–30 year age group. Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal. 2021;15(2):43–46. doi: 10.5704/MOJ.2107.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MacDonell & Keir (2005).MacDonell CW, Keir PJ. Interfering effects of the task demands of grip force and mental processing on isometric shoulder strength and muscle activity. Ergonomics. 2005;48(15):1749–1769. doi: 10.1080/00140130500319757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maddux, Kibler & Uhl (1989).Maddux REC, Kibler WB, Uhl T. Isokinetic peak torque and work values for the shoulder. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 1989;10(7):264–269. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1989.10.7.264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Magnusson et al. (1995).Magnusson SP, Constantini NW, McHugh MP, Gleim GW. Strength profiles and performance in masters’ level swimmers. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995;23(5):626–631. doi: 10.1177/036354659502300518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maier et al. (2022).Maier S, Rudisill S, Wright C, Daniell H, Melissa Lydston MLS, O’Donnell E. Sex differences in shoulder anatomy and biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Women’s Sports Medicine. 2022;2(1):5–17. doi: 10.53646/jwsm.v2i1.19. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Marcondes et al. (2019).Marcondes FB, Castropil W, Schor B, Miana A, Vasconcelos R, Etchebehere M. Shoulder isokinetic performance in healthy professional judo athletes: normative data. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira. 2019;27(6):308–312. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220192706223708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mayer et al. (1994).Mayer F, Horstmann T, Röcker K, Heitkamp H-C, Dickhuth H-H. Normal values of isokinetic maximum strength, the strength/velocity curve, and the angle at peak torque of all degrees of freedom in the shoulder. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1994;15(S1):S19–S25. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1021105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McKay et al. (2017).McKay MJ, Baldwin JN, Ferreira P, Simic M, Vanicek N, Burns J. Normative reference values for strength and flexibility of 1,000 children and adults. Neurology. 2017;88(1):36–43. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMaster, Long & Caiozzo (1992).McMaster WC, Long SC, Caiozzo VJ. Shoulder torque changes in the swimming athlete. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1992;20(3):323–327. doi: 10.1177/036354659202000315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meldrum et al. (2007).Meldrum D, Cahalane E, Conroy R, Fitzgerald D, Hardiman O. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction: reference values and clinical application. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 2007;8(1):47–55. doi: 10.1080/17482960601012491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Motta et al. (2019).Motta C, de Lira CAB, Vargas VZ, Vancini RL, Andrade MS. Profiling the isokinetic muscle strength of athletes involved in sports characterized by constantly varied functional movements performed at high intensity: a cross-sectional study. PM & R. 2019;11(4):354–362. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.08.380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murgia et al. (2018).Murgia A, Hortobágyi T, Wijnen A, Bruin L, Diercks R, Dekker R. Effects of age and sex on shoulder biomechanics and relative effort during functional tasks. Journal of Biomechanics. 2018;81:132–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murray et al. (1985).Murray MP, Gore DR, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA. Shoulder motion and muscle strength of normal men and women in two age groups. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 1985;192:268–273. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198501000-00037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nordander et al. (2008).Nordander C, Ohlsson K, Balogh I, Hansson G-Å, Axmon A, Persson R, Skerfving S. Gender differences in workers with identical repetitive industrial tasks: exposure and musculoskeletal disorders. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2008;81(8):939–947. doi: 10.1007/s00420-007-0286-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nyberg et al. (2014).Nyberg A, Hedlund M, Kolberg A, Alm L, Lindström B, Wadell K. The accuracy of using elastic resistance bands to evaluate muscular strength. European Journal of Physiotherapy. 2014;16(2):104–112. doi: 10.3109/21679169.2014.889746. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Pontillo & Sennett (2020).Pontillo M, Sennett BJ. Profile of upper extremity strength and function in division 1 collegiate athletes. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2020;44(4):8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reid et al. (1989).Reid DC, Oedekoven G, Kramer JF, Saboe LA. Isokinetic muscle strength parameters for shoulder movements. Clinical Biomechanics. 1989;4(2):97–104. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(89)90046-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Riemann et al. (2010).Riemann BL, Davies GJ, Ludwig L, Gardenhour H. Hand-held dynamometer testing of the internal and external rotator musculature based on selected positions to establish normative data and unilateral ratios. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2010;19(8):1175–1183. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Roy et al. (2009).Roy J-S, Macdermid JC, Boyd KU, Faber KJ, Drosdowech D, Athwal GS. Rotational strength, range of motion, and function in people with unaffected shoulders from various stages of life. BMC Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2009;1(4):4. doi: 10.1186/1758-2555-1-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schoenfeld et al. (2021).Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, Plotkin DL. Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. Sports. 2021;9(2):32. doi: 10.3390/sports9020032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shklar & Dvir (1995).Shklar A, Dvir Z. Isokinetic strength relationships in shoulder muscles. Clinical Biomechanics. 1995;10(7):369–373. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(95)00007-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singh & Karpovich (1968).Singh M, Karpovich PV. Strength of forearm flexors and extensors in men and women. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1968;25(2):177–180. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1968.25.2.177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith et al. (2001).Smith J, Padgett DJ, Kotajarvi BR, Eischen JJ. Isokinetic and isometric shoulder rotation strength in the protracted position: a reliability study. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2001;9(2–3):119–127. doi: 10.3233/IES-2001-0075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stausholm et al. (2021).Stausholm MB, Baun M, Bjordal JM, Nielsen D, Aagaard H, Magnusson SP, Couppé C. Shoulder rotational strength profiles of danish national level badminton players. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2021;16(2):504–510. doi: 10.26603/001c.21531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Treaster & Burr (2004).Treaster D, Burr D. Gender differences in prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Ergonomics. 2004;47(5):495–526. doi: 10.1080/00140130310001638171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Cingel et al. (2007).van Cingel R, Kleinrensink GJ, Mulder P, de Bie R, Kuipers H. Isokinetic strength values, conventional ratio and dynamic control ratio of shoulder rotator muscles in elite badminton players. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2007;15(4):287–293. doi: 10.3233/IES-2007-0285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Van Harlinger, Blalock & Merritt (2015).Van Harlinger W, Blalock L, Merritt JL. Upper limb strength: study providing normative data for a clinical handheld dynamometer. PM & R. 2015;7(2):135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Meeteren, Roebroeck & Stam (2002).van Meeteren J, Roebroeck M, Stam H. Test-retest reliability in isokinetic muscle strength measurements of the shoulder. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2002;34(2):91–95. doi: 10.1080/165019702753557890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vianna, Oliveira & Araujo (2007).Vianna LC, Oliveira RB, Araujo CGS. Age-related decline in handgrip strength differs according to gender. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007;21(4):1310–1314. doi: 10.1519/00124278-200711000-00058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Westrick et al. (2013).Westrick RB, Duffey ML, Cameron KL, Gerber JP, Owens BD. Isometric shoulder strength reference values for physically active collegiate males and females. Sports Health. 2013;5(1):17–21. doi: 10.1177/1941738112456280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yates et al. (1980).Yates JW, Kamon E, Rodgers SH, Company PC. Static lifting strength and maximal isometric voluntary contractions of back, arm and shoulder muscles. Ergonomics. 1980;23(1):37–47. doi: 10.1080/00140138008924716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (IKO) data of concentric (Con) and Eccentric (Ecc) movement types. Age ranges (AR) included. Outcomes are relative to the described measurement unit; where available, effect sizes were extracted or calculated (Cohen’s d).
Data Availability Statement
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw outcome data are available in the Supplemental Tables.