ArticlePloS one2017
Clinimetric properties of hip abduction strength measurements obtained using a handheld dynamometer in individuals with a lower extremity amputation.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of the wrestling + injury prevention program in freestyle wrestlers: a two-arm randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Muscle morphology and function following a transfemoral amputation: A systematic review.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2026Review
- Associations Between Skeletal Alignment and Biomechanical Symmetry Before and After Transfemoral Bone-anchored Limb Implantation.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Validity and Agreement of a Portable Dynamometer in Evaluating Hip Strength and Rate of Torque Development: Influence of Fixation Methods.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Assessment of isokinetic hip muscle strength and predictors in patients with lower limb amputation: A cross-sectional study.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Mediation of the mediolateral ground reaction force profile to maintain straight running among unilateral transfemoral amputees.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- RELIABILITY OF THE ISOMETRIC DYNAMOMETER IN CONTROL, PARAPLEGIC, AND AMPUTEE INDIVIDUALS.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2023Article
- The influence of hip muscle strength on gait in individuals with a unilateral transfemoral amputation.PloS one · 2020Article
- Functional performance and safety of bone-anchored prostheses in persons with a transfemoral or transtibial amputation: a prospective one-year follow-up cohort study.Clinical rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.