ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2022
Comparison between the Original- and a Standardized Version of a Physical Assessment Test for the Dorsal Chain - A Cohort-Based Cross Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Local and non-local effects (on the posterior chain) of four weeks of foot exercises: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- A four-week minimalist shoe walking intervention influences foot posture and balance in young adults-a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Testing the Posterior Chain: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Bunkie Test versus the Isokinetic Hamstrings/Quadriceps Measurement in Patients with Self-Reported Knee Pain and Healthy Controls.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The contralateral effects of foam rolling on range of motion and muscle performance.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This cohort-based cross-sectional study compares the original (OV) and a newly developed standardized version (SV) of the Bunkie Test, a physical test used to assess the dorsal chain muscles. Twenty-three participants (13 females, 10 males; median age of 26 ± 3 years) performed the test, a reverse plank, with one foot on a stool and the contralateral leg lifted. In the SV, the position of the pelvis and the foot were predefined. The test performance time (s) and surface electromyography (sEMG) signals of the dorsal chain muscles were recorded. We performed a median power frequency (MPF) analysis, using short-time Fourier transformation, and calculated the MPF/time linear regression slope. We compared the slopes of the linear regression analysis (between legs) and the performance times (between the OV and SV) with the Wilcoxon test. Performance times did not differ between SV and OV for either the dominant (p = 0.28) or non-dominant leg (p = 0.08). Linear regression analysis revealed a negative slope for the muscles of the tested leg and contralateral erector spinae, with a significant difference between the biceps femoris of the tested (-0.91 ± 1.08) and contralateral leg (0.01 ± 1.62) in the SV (p = 0.004). The sEMG showed a clearer pattern in the SV than in the OV. Hence, we recommend using the SV to assess the structures of the dorsal chain of the tested leg and contralateral back.
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.