Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31354997›Full record

ArticleJournal of aging research2019

Reliability of a Test for Assessment of Isometric Trunk Muscle Strength in Elderly Women.

Marceli M A Mesquita, Marta S Santos, Alan B S Vasconcelos, Clodoaldo A de Sá, Luana C D Pereira, Ínea B M da Silva-Santos, Walderi M da Silva Junior, Dihogo G de Matos, Alan Dos S Fontes, Paulo M P Oliveira and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of aging research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Validity and Reliability of Isometric-Bench for Knee Isometric Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marceli M A MesquitaDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Marta S SantosDepartment of Physiology, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Alan B S VasconcelosDepartment of Physiology, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Clodoaldo A de SáPostgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Community University of the Region of Chapecó, Chapecó, Brazil.
Luana C D PereiraDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Ínea B M da Silva-SantosDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Walderi M da Silva JuniorDepartment of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Dihogo G de MatosDepartment of Sports Science, Exercise and Health of the Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro University, Vila Real, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7394-8527
Alan Dos S FontesDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Paulo M P OliveiraDepartment of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Sergipe, Lagarto, Brazil.
Felipe J AidarDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Josimari M DeSantanaDepartment of Physiology, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Iohanna G S FernandesDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
Marzo E Da Silva-GrigolettoDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3338-1359
Universidade Federal de Sergipe · BRCommunity University of Chapecó Region - Unochapecó · BRUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the reproducibility of a protocol using the maximal isometric strength test of the trunk in elderly women aged above 60 years, without low back pain.

methodsTwenty-one physically inactive elderly women, who had not engaged in any activity or exercise program in the past three months, participated in the cross-sectional study that consisted of two days of evaluations for the maximal isometric strength of the extensor and flexor muscles of the trunk, with a 48 h interval between the sessions. A platform with fixed seating was used, which allowed the fixation of the hip and lower limbs, with a load cell connected to a linear encoder. To verify the reliability of the test, the interclass correlation coefficient, variation coefficient, minimum detectable difference (MDD), standard error of measurement, and Bland-Altman graphs were calculated.

resultsNo statistical difference was observed between the first and second evaluation, which indicates that there was no learning effect. Interclass correlation coefficient values were classified as very high and high for extensor (0.98) and flexor (0.86) muscles, respectively, besides low variation (9% for both muscle groups) and acceptable values for minimum detectable difference (extensors = 51.1 N, flexors = 48.9 N). In addition, the Bland-Altman analysis revealed low bias and values within the limits of agreement.

conclusionIt is concluded that the test of maximum isometric strength of the trunk in healthy and trained elderly people presents high reliability. These values proved to be reliable if performed in at least two evaluation sessions, which confirms the hypothesis of the authors by the consistency of the measurement test.

Identifiers

PMID31354997
PMCPMC6636487
OpenAlexW2954901357

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.