ArticlePeerJ2024
Reliability of dynamic and isometric upper muscle strength testing in breast cancer survivors.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Inter-Session Reliability of an Isometric Muscle Strength Protocol in Older Adults.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, and its treatment usually involves a combination of many medical procedures, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. One of the detrimental effects on physical function is reduced upper limb muscle strength. This study aimed to evaluate upper body strength intra-day and inter-day (test-retest) reliability using the handgrip strength test (HGS) and the bilateral isometric bench press (BIBP) and the test-retest reliability of the one repetition maximum on the bench press (BP-1RM) in breast cancer survivors (BCS). Thirty-two (52.94 ± 8.99 yrs) BCS participated in this study. The muscle strength tests were performed in two different moments, three to seven days apart. Intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) were used to assess the reliability. Standard error of measurement (SEM), typical error of measurement (TEM), and minimally detectable change (MDC) analyses were performed. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement between test-retest. We found a reliability that can be described as "high" to "very high" (ICC ≥ 0.88; CV ≤ 10%) for intra-day and test-retest. SEM% and MDC% were lower than 5% and 11%, respectively, for all intra-day testing. SEM% and TEM% ranged from 3% to 11%, and MDC% ranged from 9% to 23% in the test-retest reliability. The agreement demonstrated a systematic bias ranging from 2.3% to 6.0% for all testing, and a lower systematic bias may be presented in the non-treated side assessed by HGS and BIBP. HGS, BIBP, and BP-1RM assessments are reliable for measuring upper-body muscle strength in BCS.
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.