Cargando…
Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility
The manual muscle test (MMT) is a flexible diagnostic tool, which is used in many disciplines, applied in several ways. The main problem is the subjectivity of the test. The MMT in the version of a “break test” depends on the tester’s force rise and the patient’s ability to resist the applied force....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7759939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33255648 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10120996 |
_version_ | 1783627215230992384 |
---|---|
author | Bittmann, Frank N. Dech, Silas Aehle, Markus Schaefer, Laura V. |
author_facet | Bittmann, Frank N. Dech, Silas Aehle, Markus Schaefer, Laura V. |
author_sort | Bittmann, Frank N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The manual muscle test (MMT) is a flexible diagnostic tool, which is used in many disciplines, applied in several ways. The main problem is the subjectivity of the test. The MMT in the version of a “break test” depends on the tester’s force rise and the patient’s ability to resist the applied force. As a first step, the investigation of the reproducibility of the testers’ force profile is required for valid application. The study examined the force profiles of n = 29 testers (n = 9 experiences (Exp), n = 8 little experienced (LitExp), n = 12 beginners (Beg)). The testers performed 10 MMTs according to the test of hip flexors, but against a fixed leg to exclude the patient’s reaction. A handheld device recorded the temporal course of the applied force. The results show significant differences between Exp and Beg concerning the starting force (p(adj) = 0.029), the ratio of starting to maximum force (p(adj) = 0.005) and the normalized mean Euclidean distances between the 10 trials (p(adj) = 0.015). The slope is significantly higher in Exp vs. LitExp (p = 0.006) and Beg (p = 0.005). The results also indicate that experienced testers show inter-tester differences and partly even a low intra-tester reproducibility. This highlights the necessity of an objective MMT-assessment. Furthermore, an agreement on a standardized force profile is required. A suggestion for this is given. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7759939 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77599392020-12-26 Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility Bittmann, Frank N. Dech, Silas Aehle, Markus Schaefer, Laura V. Diagnostics (Basel) Article The manual muscle test (MMT) is a flexible diagnostic tool, which is used in many disciplines, applied in several ways. The main problem is the subjectivity of the test. The MMT in the version of a “break test” depends on the tester’s force rise and the patient’s ability to resist the applied force. As a first step, the investigation of the reproducibility of the testers’ force profile is required for valid application. The study examined the force profiles of n = 29 testers (n = 9 experiences (Exp), n = 8 little experienced (LitExp), n = 12 beginners (Beg)). The testers performed 10 MMTs according to the test of hip flexors, but against a fixed leg to exclude the patient’s reaction. A handheld device recorded the temporal course of the applied force. The results show significant differences between Exp and Beg concerning the starting force (p(adj) = 0.029), the ratio of starting to maximum force (p(adj) = 0.005) and the normalized mean Euclidean distances between the 10 trials (p(adj) = 0.015). The slope is significantly higher in Exp vs. LitExp (p = 0.006) and Beg (p = 0.005). The results also indicate that experienced testers show inter-tester differences and partly even a low intra-tester reproducibility. This highlights the necessity of an objective MMT-assessment. Furthermore, an agreement on a standardized force profile is required. A suggestion for this is given. MDPI 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7759939/ /pubmed/33255648 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10120996 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bittmann, Frank N. Dech, Silas Aehle, Markus Schaefer, Laura V. Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title | Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title_full | Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title_fullStr | Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title_full_unstemmed | Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title_short | Manual Muscle Testing—Force Profiles and Their Reproducibility |
title_sort | manual muscle testing—force profiles and their reproducibility |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7759939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33255648 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10120996 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bittmannfrankn manualmuscletestingforceprofilesandtheirreproducibility AT dechsilas manualmuscletestingforceprofilesandtheirreproducibility AT aehlemarkus manualmuscletestingforceprofilesandtheirreproducibility AT schaeferlaurav manualmuscletestingforceprofilesandtheirreproducibility |