Isometric Strength Database for Muscle Maximal Voluntary Endurance Field Tests: Normative Data.
Normative database; Muscle prediction equation; Isometric field test; Outcome assessments; Reproducibility
Journal
Sports medicine - open
ISSN: 2199-1170
Titre abrégé: Sports Med Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101662568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jul 2021
12 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
18
08
2020
accepted:
17
06
2021
entrez:
12
7
2021
pubmed:
13
7
2021
medline:
13
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Different field tests are used to evaluate muscle capacity, in particular maximal voluntary isometric endurance. However, although there are some normative values for a few muscle endurance tests, these do not consider the weight, height, gender, or age of individuals, which are well-known factors that influence muscle performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reproducibility of eight field tests and establish muscle endurance norms, in a healthy population, based on their anthropometric characteristics, which could allow the optimal evaluation of the entire muscle function in a quick manner. Case series. This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was to check the reproducibility inter- and intra-assessor for eight isometric muscle field tests on 20 volunteer subjects aged 40.9 ± 11.6 years old (age range, 21-58 years). The second part was to establish muscle maximal voluntary isometric endurance norms according to these tests on a total of 400 healthy participants grouped by age (50 males and females in each of the age brackets, 20-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59 years old, for a total of 200 males and 200 females). The intra- and inter-assessor reproducibility tests are good for all muscle measurements (the intraclass correlation coefficients varied between 0.915 and 0.996 and the coefficient of variation between 3.6 and 11.8%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates a good sensibility with values greater than 0.7 for each test. Each muscle belt presents same ratio regardless of the age and gender group. The simultaneous multiple regression analyses highlight that the anthropometric characteristics of subjects influence significantly the performance of isometric tests. This study has permitted establishing prediction equations in a healthy population according to their anthropometric characteristics as well as agonist/antagonist ratios for eight muscle isometric field tests after demonstrating a good reproducibility of all tests.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Different field tests are used to evaluate muscle capacity, in particular maximal voluntary isometric endurance. However, although there are some normative values for a few muscle endurance tests, these do not consider the weight, height, gender, or age of individuals, which are well-known factors that influence muscle performance.
HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reproducibility of eight field tests and establish muscle endurance norms, in a healthy population, based on their anthropometric characteristics, which could allow the optimal evaluation of the entire muscle function in a quick manner.
DESIGN
METHODS
Case series.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was to check the reproducibility inter- and intra-assessor for eight isometric muscle field tests on 20 volunteer subjects aged 40.9 ± 11.6 years old (age range, 21-58 years). The second part was to establish muscle maximal voluntary isometric endurance norms according to these tests on a total of 400 healthy participants grouped by age (50 males and females in each of the age brackets, 20-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59 years old, for a total of 200 males and 200 females).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The intra- and inter-assessor reproducibility tests are good for all muscle measurements (the intraclass correlation coefficients varied between 0.915 and 0.996 and the coefficient of variation between 3.6 and 11.8%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates a good sensibility with values greater than 0.7 for each test. Each muscle belt presents same ratio regardless of the age and gender group. The simultaneous multiple regression analyses highlight that the anthropometric characteristics of subjects influence significantly the performance of isometric tests.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study has permitted establishing prediction equations in a healthy population according to their anthropometric characteristics as well as agonist/antagonist ratios for eight muscle isometric field tests after demonstrating a good reproducibility of all tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34250556
doi: 10.1186/s40798-021-00338-2
pii: 10.1186/s40798-021-00338-2
pmc: PMC8273050
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
47Subventions
Organisme : Conventions Industrielles de Formation par la REcherche - Agence National Recherche Technologie (FR)
ID : 2018/0103
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2009 Oct;197 Suppl 673:1-68
pubmed: 19744082
PM R. 2011 May;3(5):472-9
pubmed: 21570036
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018 Feb;9(1):3-19
pubmed: 29151281
J Hum Kinet. 2014 Apr 09;40:93-102
pubmed: 25031677
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Sep;79(9):1069-75
pubmed: 9749686
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jun;27(6):1602-8
pubmed: 23007488
Age Ageing. 2000 May;29(3):235-42
pubmed: 10855906
Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;24(2):250-8
pubmed: 15784486
Respir Med. 2011 Jan;105(1):88-94
pubmed: 20580542
Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Oct;10(4):264-8
pubmed: 11086752
Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2000 Dec;25(6):499-503
pubmed: 11122288
Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(9):656-61
pubmed: 17852318
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40
pubmed: 15705040
J Sport Rehabil. 2017 Nov;26(6):556-566
pubmed: 27992245
Stat Methods Med Res. 1998 Sep;7(3):301-17
pubmed: 9803527
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015 Oct;19(4):636-45
pubmed: 26592221
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Apr 29;:1-27
pubmed: 31034261
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Oct;88(10):1289-97
pubmed: 17908571
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Dec;55(6):864-874
pubmed: 30458949
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Oct;23(7):2033-8
pubmed: 19855327
Physiother Theory Pract. 2015;31(6):418-27
pubmed: 25671354
Disabil Rehabil. 1995 Aug-Sep;17(6):265-76
pubmed: 7579476
Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2008 May;51(4):263-83
pubmed: 18534706
Rev Med Liege. 2005 Jul-Aug;60(7-8):661-8
pubmed: 16184742
Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn. 1957;35(3):307-15
pubmed: 13470504
Rev Bras Fisioter. 2012 Jun;16(3):216-24
pubmed: 22801514
Phys Ther. 1996 Mar;76(3):248-59
pubmed: 8602410
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995 Sep;10(6):325-330
pubmed: 11415575
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Jan;77(1):75-9
pubmed: 8554479
J Sci Med Sport. 2007 Dec;10(6):447-55
pubmed: 17141568
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Aug;80(8):941-4
pubmed: 10453772
Longev Healthspan. 2014 Dec 01;3(1):9
pubmed: 25520782
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Feb 8;21(1):89
pubmed: 32035479
J Sport Rehabil. 2020 Feb 05;29(6):851-854
pubmed: 32028258
Acta Paediatr. 2008 Sep;97(9):1226-31
pubmed: 18540905
Acta Ortop Bras. 2019 Mar-Apr;27(2):124-128
pubmed: 30988661