Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30028864›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Testing a novel isokinetic dynamometer constructed using a 1080 Quantum.

Alanna K Whinton, Kyle M A Thompson, Geoffrey A Power, Jamie F Burr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Test-Retest Reliability of the Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer for Squat Exercise.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Low-load resistance training to task failure with and without blood flow restriction: muscular functional and structural adaptations.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2020
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alanna K WhintonDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, Human Performance and Health Research Laboratory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9823-6406
Kyle M A ThompsonDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, Human Performance and Health Research Laboratory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Geoffrey A PowerDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, Neuromechanical Performance Research Laboratory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Jamie F BurrDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, Human Performance and Health Research Laboratory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5449-3352
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study sought to assess the reliability and comparability of two custom-built isokinetic dynamometers (Model A and Model B) with the gold-standard (Humac Norm). The two custom-built dynamometers consisted of commercially available leg extension machines attached to a robotically controlled resistance device (1080 Quantum), able to measure power, force and velocity outputs. Twenty subjects (14m/6f, 26±4.8yr, 176±7cm, 74.4±12.4kg) performed concentric leg extensions on the custom-built dynamometers and the Humac Norm. Fifteen maximal leg extensions were performed with each leg at 180° s-1, or the linear equivalent (~0.5m s-1). Peak power (W), mean power (W), and fatigue indexes (%) achieved on all three devices were compared. Both custom-built dynamometers revealed high reliability for peak and mean power on repeated tests (ICC>0.88). Coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were small when comparing power outputs obtained using Model A and the Humac Norm ([Formula: see text] CV = 9.0%, [Formula: see text] SEM = 49W; peak CV = 8.4%, peak SEM = 49W). Whereas, Model B had greater variance ([Formula: see text] CV = 13.3% [Formula: see text] SEM = 120W; peak CV = 14.7%, peak SEM = 146W). The custom-built dynamometers are capable of highly reliable measures, but absolute power outputs varied depending on the leg extension model. Consistent use of a single model offers reliable results for tracking muscular performance over time or testing an intervention.

Indexed as

Muscle Strength DynamometerAdultEquipment DesignFemaleHumansLegMaleMuscle FatigueMuscle StrengthReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30028864
PMCPMC6054416
OpenAlexW2883690547

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.