Comparison of Common Methodologies for the Determination of Knee Flexor Muscle Strength.
dynamometry
hamstrings
knee flexion
muscle strength
nordic hamstring curl
strength assessment
Journal
International journal of sports physical therapy
ISSN: 2159-2896
Titre abrégé: Int J Sports Phys Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101553140
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2021
01 Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez:
12
4
2021
pubmed:
13
4
2021
medline:
13
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Knee flexion strength may hold important clinical implications for the determination of injury risk and readiness to return to sport following injury and orthopedic surgery. A wide array of testing methodologies and positioning options are available that require validation prior to clinical integration. The purpose of this study was to 1) investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of isometric knee flexion strength measured by a fixed handheld dynamometer (HHD) apparatus compared to a Biodex Dynamometer (BD), 2) determine the impact of body position (seated versus supine) and foot position (plantar- vs dorsiflexed) on knee flexion peak torque and 3) establish the validity and test-retest reliability of the NordBord Hamstring Dynamometer. Validity and reliability study, test-retest design. Forty-four healthy participants (aged 27 ± 4.8 years) were assessed by two raters over two testing sessions separated by three to seven days. Maximal isometric knee flexion in the seated and supine position at 90 Level of agreement between HHD and BD torque demonstrated low bias (bias -0.33 Nm, SD of bias 13.5 Nm; 95% LOA 26.13 Nm, -26.79 Nm). Interrater reliability of the HHD was high, varying slightly with body position (ICC range 0.9-0.97, n=44). Isometric knee flexion torque was higher in the seated versus supine position and with the foot dorsiflexed versus plantarflexed. Eccentric knee flexion torque had a high degree of correlation with isometric knee flexion torque as measured via the BD (r=0.61-0.86). The NordBord had high test-retest reliability (0.993 (95%CI 0.983-0.997, n=19) for eccentric knee flexor strength, with an MDC Common measures of maximal isometric knee flexion display high levels of correlation and test-retest reliability. However, values obtained by an externally fixed HHD are not interchangeable with values obtained via the BD. Foot and body position should be considered and controlled during testing. 2b.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Knee flexion strength may hold important clinical implications for the determination of injury risk and readiness to return to sport following injury and orthopedic surgery. A wide array of testing methodologies and positioning options are available that require validation prior to clinical integration. The purpose of this study was to 1) investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of isometric knee flexion strength measured by a fixed handheld dynamometer (HHD) apparatus compared to a Biodex Dynamometer (BD), 2) determine the impact of body position (seated versus supine) and foot position (plantar- vs dorsiflexed) on knee flexion peak torque and 3) establish the validity and test-retest reliability of the NordBord Hamstring Dynamometer.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Validity and reliability study, test-retest design.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty-four healthy participants (aged 27 ± 4.8 years) were assessed by two raters over two testing sessions separated by three to seven days. Maximal isometric knee flexion in the seated and supine position at 90
RESULTS
RESULTS
Level of agreement between HHD and BD torque demonstrated low bias (bias -0.33 Nm, SD of bias 13.5 Nm; 95% LOA 26.13 Nm, -26.79 Nm). Interrater reliability of the HHD was high, varying slightly with body position (ICC range 0.9-0.97, n=44). Isometric knee flexion torque was higher in the seated versus supine position and with the foot dorsiflexed versus plantarflexed. Eccentric knee flexion torque had a high degree of correlation with isometric knee flexion torque as measured via the BD (r=0.61-0.86). The NordBord had high test-retest reliability (0.993 (95%CI 0.983-0.997, n=19) for eccentric knee flexor strength, with an MDC
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Common measures of maximal isometric knee flexion display high levels of correlation and test-retest reliability. However, values obtained by an externally fixed HHD are not interchangeable with values obtained via the BD. Foot and body position should be considered and controlled during testing.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
2b.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33842031
doi: 10.26603/001c.21311
pii: 21311
pmc: PMC8016447
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
350-359Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts to declare.
Références
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1992;16(2):74-81
pubmed: 18780994
Physiother Theory Pract. 2012 Oct;28(7):562-8
pubmed: 22191509
J Athl Train. 2017 Sep;52(9):809-819
pubmed: 28787180
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Aug;81(8):1072-6
pubmed: 10943757
J Sport Rehabil. 2008 May;17(2):160-70
pubmed: 18515915
J Sci Med Sport. 2012 Sep;15(5):444-50
pubmed: 22424705
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Dec;27(12):3367-76
pubmed: 23524367
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Aug;28(8):1878-1887
pubmed: 29694677
Rev Bras Ortop. 2015 Nov 16;44(3):214-24
pubmed: 27004175
Phys Ther. 1986 Jul;66(7):1083-6
pubmed: 3725894
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Mar;21(3):550-5
pubmed: 22773065
Clin J Sport Med. 2019 Jan;29(1):69-77
pubmed: 28827499
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001 Dec;31(12):730-40
pubmed: 11767248
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1989;11(3):104-7
pubmed: 18796923
PM R. 2011 May;3(5):472-9
pubmed: 21570036
J Sport Rehabil. 2013 Feb 18;22(1):
pubmed: 22951307
J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Sep;28(9):2445-2451
pubmed: 27799667
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;11(10):449-52
pubmed: 18796892
J Sport Rehabil. 2017 May;26(3):202-207
pubmed: 27632836
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002 Oct;12(5):399-406
pubmed: 12223173
J Athl Train. 2010 Jul-Aug;45(4):349-56
pubmed: 20617909
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002 Oct;12(5):385-90
pubmed: 12223171
Clin J Sport Med. 2021 Sep 1;31(5):e271-e276
pubmed: 31842051
Int J Sports Med. 2012 May;33(5):386-9
pubmed: 22377952
J Sports Sci Med. 2006 Sep 01;5(3):400-6
pubmed: 24353457
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Oct;191(4):962-72
pubmed: 18806129
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2014 Feb 25;6(1):10
pubmed: 24568140
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Jul;25(7):1963-7
pubmed: 21399535
Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2017 Sep 18;7(2):286-292
pubmed: 29264340
J Sports Sci. 2017 Nov;35(22):2179-2184
pubmed: 27882825
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991;13(4):191-8
pubmed: 18796845
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 31;12:249
pubmed: 22040119
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Dec 1;35(12):3322-3326
pubmed: 31469769
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 28;10(10):e0140822
pubmed: 26509265
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Apr;85(4):598-603
pubmed: 15083436
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Feb;27:137-141
pubmed: 27476066
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019 Apr;14(2):180-187
pubmed: 30997270
Open Med (Wars). 2017 Oct 17;12:359-375
pubmed: 29071305
J Sci Med Sport. 2016 Jan;19(1):93-6
pubmed: 25683733
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014 Mar;34(2):121-5
pubmed: 23865492
Ann Rehabil Med. 2014 Feb;38(1):84-93
pubmed: 24639931
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Sep;19(6):662-7
pubmed: 16180603
Med Probl Perform Art. 2011 Dec;26(4):185-94
pubmed: 22211194
Muscle Nerve. 2002 Jun;25(6):858-63
pubmed: 12115975
Physiother Theory Pract. 2013 Nov;29(8):639-47
pubmed: 23724831
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2019 Nov 22;2(1):100034
pubmed: 33543063
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994 Dec;20(6):302-6
pubmed: 7849750
J Athl Train. 2013 May-Jun;48(3):306-13
pubmed: 23675789
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Apr;29(4):997-1002
pubmed: 25426513
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013 Aug;23(4):487-93
pubmed: 22092308
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Mar;40(3):566-73
pubmed: 18379222