Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14523563›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2004

Muscle strength testing: evaluation of tests of explosive force production.

Dragan M Mirkov, Aleksandar Nedeljkovic, Sladjan Milanovic, Slobodan Jaric

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Dragan M MirkovDepartment of Biophysics, School of Medicine, Belgrade University, Dr. Subotica 8, 11 000, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
Aleksandar Nedeljkovic
Sladjan Milanovic
Slobodan Jaric
University of Belgrade · RSInstitute for Medical Research · ARUniversity of Delaware · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate four tests of explosive force production (EFP). Specifically, the main aims of the study were to assess the reliability of different EFP tests, to examine their relationship with maximum muscle strength, and to explore the relationship between EFP tests and functional movement performance. After an extensive preliminary familiarization with the tasks, subjects ( n=26) were tested on maximum explosive strength of the elbow extensor and flexor muscle, as well as on rapid elbow extension and flexion movements performed in both an oscillatory and a discrete fashion. In addition to maximum force ( F(max)), four different EFP tests were assessed from the recorded force-time curves: the time interval elapsed between achieving 30% and 70% of F(max) ( F(30-70%)), the maximum rate of force development (RFD), the same value normalized with respect to F(max) (RFD/ F(max)), and the force exerted 100 ms after the contraction initiation ( F(100 ms)). Excluding F(30--70%), all remaining EFP tests revealed either good or fair reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients being within 0.8-1 and 0.6-0.8 intervals, respectively) which was also comparable with the reliability of F(max). RFD and F(100 ms) demonstrated a positive relationship with F(max), but not T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max). Stronger elbow flexor muscles also demonstrated higher values of RFD and F(100 ms) than weaker elbow extensor muscles, while no difference was observed between either T(30-70%) or RFD/ F(max) recorded from two muscles. Despite the simplicity of the tested movement tasks, the relationship observed between the EFP tests and the peak movement velocity remained moderate and partly insignificant. It was concluded that most of the EFP tests could be reliable for assessing neuromuscular function in their muscle-force- (or, indirectly, muscle size) dependent (such as RFD and F(100 ms)), or muscle-force-independent ( T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max)) forms. However, their "external validity" when applied to assess the ability to perform rapid movements could be questioned.

Indexed as

AdultElbow JointExercise TestHumansIsometric ContractionMaleMovementMuscle, SkeletalPhysical ExaminationPhysical ExertionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID14523563
OpenAlexW2172268412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.