ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2019
Evaluating gluteus maximus maximal voluntary isometric contractions for EMG normalization in male rugby players.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electromyographic Comparison of Five Lower-Limb Muscles between Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises among Trained Men.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2021Article
- Gluteal muscle activation during rehabilitation exercises in female field hockey players.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The aim of this study was to determine the highest electromyography (EMG) amplitude of the gluteus maximus from closed and open kinetic gluteal maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs). [Participants and Methods] Ten healthy male rugby players performed three MVIC techniques that included, in random order: single leg squat, prone hip extension and standing gluteal squeeze. EMG signals were recorded from the inferior and superior regions of gluteus maximus of the dominant leg, and were normalized to the prone hip extension. [Results] For statistical analysis the EMG of both gluteus maximus regions were pooled together. The standing gluteal squeeze revealed a significantly lower EMG compared to single leg squat and prone hip extension. However, there was no significant difference in gluteal EMG activity between single leg squat and prone hip extension. [Conclusion] There is no distinct advantage for either single leg squat or prone hip extension in eliciting maximum EMG activity. Future research should compare the present positions with other MVICs that are commonly prescribed or have been demonstrated to produce high EMG amplitudes.
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.