Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640926›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Clinimetric properties of hip abduction strength measurements obtained using a handheld dynamometer in individuals with a lower extremity amputation.

Ruud A Leijendekkers, Gerben van Hinte, Amy D Sman, J Bart Staal, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Thomas J Hoogeboom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruud A LeijendekkersDepartment of Orthopaedics, Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6158-6901
Gerben van HinteDepartment of Orthopaedics, Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Amy D SmanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
J Bart StaalRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Maria W G Nijhuis-van der SandenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Thomas J HoogeboomRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLHAN University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSuitable handheld dynamometer (HHD)-techniques to test hip abduction strength in individuals with a lower extremity amputation, irrespective of their amputation level are absent. The aim of this study was to optimise a HHD-technique and to test its reproducibility and validity.

methodsThis study involved three phases, in which two techniques were evaluated. Both HHD-techniques used a lever-arm of 22 centimetre. HHD-technique 1 used a break-technique. After obtaining within-session test-retest reproducibility (phase 1) we optimised the HHD-technique by adding a fixation-belt and using a make-technique (HHD-technique 2). We tested the within-session test-retest and inter-rater reproducibility (phase 2) and the validity (phase 3) of HHD-technique 2 using an isokinetic dynamometer. New cohorts of participants were recruited for each phase.

resultsPhase 1: we tested HHD-technique 1 in 26 participants with a lower extremity amputation. It was test-retest reproducible (ICC3.1agreement: 0.80-0.92, standard error of measurement (SEM): 3.1-4.4 Nm and smallest detectable change (SDC): 8.6-12.3 Nm). There were questions regarding the validity of the measurement, because the mean muscle torque of the residual limb and sound limb were similar, which is uncommon. Phase 2: reproducibility of HHD-technique 2 was tested in 44 participants with a lower extremity amputation. It was test-retest reproducible (ICC3.1agreement: 0.96-0.97, SEM: 3.9-4.7 Nm and SDC: 10.9-12.9 Nm) but not inter-rater reproducible despite having good reliability (ICC3.1agreement: 0.92, SEM: 6.9-7.6 Nm and SDC: 19.2-21.2 Nm). Systematic bias and bias related to the magnitude of the muscle torque was suspected. Phase 3: the concurrent validity was established in 30 healthy participants (r = 0.84). Systematic bias in measurement error was present, including a consistent overestimation of the muscle torque of 28% using the HHD.

conclusionHHD-technique 2 is a test-retest reproducible and valid measuring technique The technique may be further optimised by the use of an external device to stabilise the HHD.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalMuscle Strength DynamometerAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHipHumansLower ExtremityMaleMiddle AgedSupine PositionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28640926
PMCPMC5481015
OpenAlexW2717442983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.