Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2009
Can the electromyographic fatigue threshold be determined from superficial elbow flexor muscles during an isometric single-joint task?
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Muscle fatigue assessment during robot-mediated movements.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2018Trial
- Electrode Size and Placement for Surface EMG Bipolar Detection from the Brachioradialis Muscle: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the electromyographic fatigue threshold (EMG(FT)) values determined simultaneously from superficial elbow flexor muscles during an isometric single-joint task. Eight subjects performed isometric elbow flexions at randomly ordered percentages of maximal voluntary contraction (20, 30, 40, 50 and 60%). During these bouts, electromyographic (EMG) activity was measured in the anterior head of Deltoïd, lateral head of Triceps brachii, Brachioradialis and both short and long head of Biceps brachii. For each subject and each muscle, the EMG amplitude data were plotted as function of time for the five submaximal bouts. The slope coefficient of the EMG amplitude versus time linear relationships were plotted against force level. EMG(FT) was determined as the y-intercept of this relationship and considered as valid only if the following criteria were met: (1) significant positive linear regression (P < 0.05) between force and slope coefficient, (2) an adjusted coefficient of determination for force versus slope coefficient relationship greater than 0.85, and (3) a standard error for the EMG(FT) below 5% of maximal voluntary contraction. The EMG(FT) could only be determined for one muscle (the long head of Biceps brachii) and only in three out of the eight subjects (mean value = 24.9 +/- 1.1% of maximal voluntary contraction). The lack of EMG(FT) in most of the subjects (5/8) could be explained by putative compensations between elbow muscles which were indirectly observed in some subjects. In this way, EMG(FT) should be studied from a more simple movement i.e., ideally a movement implying mainly one muscle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.