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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bittmann, Frank N., Dech, Silas, Aehle, Markus, Schaefer, Laura V.
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