The literature describes more than ten upper extremity physical performance tests that are characterized by being low-cost, quick, and easy to administer. However, there are discussions about the applicability of the tests in clinical practice due to their inability to reproduce the sports-specific movement and the lack of reference values.

To evaluate the opinion of Brazilian sports physiotherapists regarding the frequency, timing, and difficulties in using upper extremity physical performance tests in clinical practice, as well as to investigate which of the tests available in the literature are being used more or less frequently.

The study design was cross-sectional. Physiotherapists working in the orthopedic or sports field were invited to fill out an online questionnaire. The frequency question was multiple choice, allowing participants to select one of five options ranging from never to always. The timing question was multiple choice, allowing participants to select all three options: assessment, rehabilitation, and return to sport. The question about difficulties was multiple choice, allowing participants to click on only one of the following options: “yes”, “a little”, or “no”. The first two options directed the participant to an optional open question to report the difficulties. As for the question regarding which test, they use, the names and figures of each of the ten tests were presented, and the participants answered whether or not they used them. The present study included the participation of physiotherapists who treated at least 1% of athletes per month, but for this abstract, the responses of physiotherapists for whom athlete treatment represented 50% or more of the services rendered per month were analyzed descriptively.

The answers of one hundred sports physiotherapists were analyzed, the majority of whom were male (67%), worked in the state of São Paulo (32%), and had an average age of 33 years with 8 years of experience in the physiotherapy area. The physiotherapists answered that they frequently use the tests (37%), mainly for assessment purposes (85%), and the majority reported not having difficulty applying the tests (57%). The physiotherapists who reported having difficulty pointed out the lack of reference values, adequate space, evaluation time, and knowledge about the tests as a challenge in clinical practice, as well as the inability to reproduce the sports-specific movement and the lack of adaptation to different body types. The most commonly used test was the “Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test” (CKCUEST) (86%), while the least used was the “Upper Body Push and Pull Strength Ratio” (23%).

In conclusion, physiotherapists whose treatment of athletes represented 50% or more of the treatments per month, despite reporting some difficulties, frequently use upper extremity physical performance tests, mainly the CKCUEST, to evaluate their athletes.

This abstract showed that physiotherapists who treat athletes are aware of and use upper extremity physical performance tests, but some encounter difficulties in implementing them in clinical practice. Therefore, further research in this area may provide reference values for the Brazilian population.