ArticleScientific reports2024
Pinch force sense test-retest reliability evaluation using contralateral force matching task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A high test-retest reliability in measurement of pinch force sense is required to assess a clinical parameter accurately over a longitudinal study. Ipsilateral reproduction (IR) task and contralateral matching (CM) task have commonly been used for the assessment of force sense. To date, there has been little research on the test-retest reliability of pinch force sense utilizing the contralateral force matching task. This research aimed to explore this phenomenon across a spectrum of reference force levels (10, 30, and 50 percent maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)) using a contralateral matching task. Every participant in the study was tested twice by the same skilled experts, with each session separated by one week. Although normalized variable error indicated a poor level of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = - 0.25 to 0.05) for these force sense tests, normalized constant error (ICC = 0.76-0.85) and normalized absolute error (ICC = 0.61-0.81) results indicated a fair to good of reliability. The lower bound of 95% CI of ICC for NAE and NCE indicated fair test-retest reliability (0.41-0.69). These findings suggest that investigators can reasonably obtain a fair to good test-retest reliability when investigating pinch force sense using the contralateral matching task. The Bland-Altman plots, SEM, and MDD95% were lower at these lower reference force level (10% MVIC) compared to the level of higher reference forces (30% and 50% MVIC). Therefore, when the reference force level increases, the participant needs a larger NAE or NCE decrease to show that their pinch force sense has indeed improved.
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.