Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25729187›Full record

ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2015

Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization.

Gyoung-Mo Kim, Sung-Min Ha

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gyoung-Mo KimDepartment of Physical Therapy, Division of Health Science, Baekseok University, Republic of Korea.
Sung-Min HaDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Sangji University, Republic of Korea.
Baekseok University · KRSangji University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modified Thomas test under three conditions: 1) the general modified Thomas test (GM), 2) active lumbo-pelvic stabilization (ALS), and 3) passive lumbo-pelvic stabilization (PLS). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the test-retest reliability of the knee joint angle measurement under three conditions. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (95% confidence interval) (MDD(95)) were calculated for each measurement to assess absolute consistency. [Results] The ALS (ICC = 0.99) and PLS (ICC = 0.98) methods for the modified Thomas test were more reliable than GM method (ICC = 0.97). The MDD(95) score for the ALS method, 2.35 degrees, indicated that a real difference existed between two testing sessions compared with the scores for the PLS (3.70 degrees) and GM methods (4.17 degrees) [Conclusion] Lumbo-pelvic stabilization is one of the considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error when evaluating hip flexor tightness using the modified Thomas test.

Indexed as

Lumbo-pelvic stabilizationModified Thomas test

Identifiers

PMID25729187
PMCPMC4339157
OpenAlexW2072010683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.