ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2012
Evaluation of alternating consecutive maximum contractions as an alternative test of neuromuscular function.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence of Verbal Instruction on Measurement Reliability and Explosive Neuromuscular Performance of the Knee Extensors.Journal of human kinetics · 2018Article
- Evaluation of novel tests of neuromuscular function based on brief muscle actions.Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2013Article
- Relationships among the muscle strength properties as assessed through various tests and variables.Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology · 2013Article
- Alternating Consecutive Maximum Contraction as a Test of Muscle Function in Athletes Following ACL Reconstruction.Journal of human kinetics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The standard strength test (SST) has been based only on sustained maximum forces, as well as on relatively large number trials needed to record the maximum forces (F) and their rate of development (RFD). The aim of this study was to extend our recent research on alternating consecutive maximum contractions (ACMC) performed by antagonist muscles. Instead of varying the frequency, we explored the properties of ACMC performed at the self-selected frequency and compared it with SST. Knee extensors and flexors were tested in 64 participants. Within-session reliability of F and RFD of the two muscles evaluated through a single ACMC trial proved to be high (ICC ≥ 0.8), as well as their concurrent validity regarding the SST (r ≥ 0.7). Mainly strong relationships (r > 0.50) with the maximum performance tests also suggested moderate-to-high external validity of ACMC variables. Finally, the same variables were also able to distinguish among the participants of different training and physical activity history (p < 0.05). Taken together, these data suggest that ACMC could have the properties of reliability, external validity, and sensitivity similar to SST. However, since ACMC still retains some important advantages over SST (e.g., being based on a brief and fatigue free procedure for testing two antagonistic muscles, and exposing the muscle and joint tissues to relatively low and transient forces), one could conclude that ACMC performed at the self-selected frequency could be developed into a test of muscle function that could be either alternative or complementary to the SST.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21833485What 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.