ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Between-Session Reliability of Field-Based Assessments of Isometric Neck Strength.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of the fixed-frame dynamometer for measuring isometric neck strength is established, but with limited field-based applications. This study aimed to establish the inter- and intra-session reliability of the peak force for neck flexors, extensors, and side flexors using the VALD ForceFrame and DynaMo and the force-time characteristics in the quadruped position (ForceFrame). Twenty-seven recreationally active males performed three repetitions of isometric neck flexion, extension, and side flexion over two sessions in random order using the VALD ForceFrame and DynaMo. Both devices demonstrated acceptable reliability, with the Forceframe ICC > 0.8 and CV% < 13.8% and the DynaMo ICC > 0.76 and CV% < 13.8%. No systematic or proportional differences were found using the Passing-Bablock procedure, and Bland-Altman analysis confirmed agreement across measures. Reliability was shown for right-side (ICC > 0.76) and left-side (ICC > 0.79) flexion and flexion (ICC > 0.75) across 50, 100, 150, and 200 ms. Statistical parametric mapping indicated no differences in ForceFrame-generated isometric force-time curves between sessions, though the CV was highest in the force development phase. The findings suggest that both tools can reliably assess neck strength, supporting their use in sports and clinical settings. However, assessment methods are not interchangeable, emphasising the need for standardised neck strength assessment approaches.
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.