ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Reliability and validity of three isometric back extensor strength assessments with different test postures.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Validation of Vibration Exercises on Enhancing Muscle Strength and Upper Limb Functionality among Pre-Frail Community-Dwelling Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Reliability and Validity of Isometric Back Extensor Strength Measurements Using Hand-Held and Isokinetic Dynamometry in Sitting and Semi-Standing Positions.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Assessment of Isokinetic Trunk Muscle Strength and Fatigue Rate in Individuals after Bariatric Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Quantitative multi-parameter assessment of age- and gender-related variation of back extensor muscles in healthy adults using Dixon MR imaging.European radiology · 2024Article
- Spinal posture assessment and low back pain.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Correlation between strength/endurance of paraspinal muscles and sagittal parameters in patients with degenerative spinal deformity.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Acute Effects of Static Self-Stretching Exercises and Foam Roller Self-Massaging on the Trunk Range of Motions and Strength of the Trunk Extensors.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the test-retest reliability and validity of three simple maximal isometric back extensor strength (BES) assessment protocols with different test postures, and to recommend an optimal clinical protocol to quantify BES.
methodsAsymptomatic adults, aged over 45 years, were assessed for maximal isometric BES using external fixation of dynamometers, with the subject in standing, prone and sitting positions, respectively. Measurements were repeated at a one-week interval to examine test-retest reliability. Validation was performed by comparing with results obtained from isokinetic dynamometer assessments.
resultsOut of a total of 60 included participants, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.92, 0.93 and 0.90 in standing, prone and sitting positions, respectively. Correlation analyses revealed acceptable convergent validity in the standing and prone position (r = 0.50 and 0.54, respectively), whereas tests conducted in the sitting position showed a relatively low validity (r = 0.32). Among the three protocols, measurement error was lowest in the prone position.
conclusionsMaximal isometric BES assessment in the prone position was shown to be the most reliable and valid protocol, and may be considered the preferred option for assessing BES in clinical practice.
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.