ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the variation in muscle response testing accuracy through repeatability and reproducibility.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
RESEARCH
objectivesTo explore the variation in mean muscle response testing (MRT) accuracy and whether this variation can be attributable to participant characteristics.
methodsA prospective study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a round-robin format. Sixteen practitioners tested each of 7 test patients (TPs) using 20 MRTs broken into 2 blocks of 10 which alternated with 2 blocks of 10 intuitive guessing. Mean MRT accuracies (as overall percent correct) were calculated for each unique pair. Reproducibility and repeatability were assessed using analyses of variance (ANOVA) and scatter and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsThe mean MRT accuracy (95% CI) was 0.616 (0.578-0.654), which was significantly different from both the mean intuitive guessing accuracy, 0.507 (95% CI 0.484-0.530; p<0.01) and chance (p<0.01). Visual inspection of scatterplots of mean MRT accuracies by practitioner and by TP suggest large variances among both subsets, and regression analysis revealed that MRT accuracy could not be predicted by TP (r = ‒0.14; p = 0.19), nor by Practitioner (r = 0.01; p = 0.90). A significant effect imposed by both practitioners and TPs individually and together was found at the p<0.05 level; however, together they account for only 57.0% of the variance, with 43.0% of the variance unexplained by this model. From a statistical perspective, Bland-Altman Plots of mean MRT accuracy by practitioner do show adequate repeatability since all scores fell within 2 SDs of the mean; however, the wide range of scores also suggests insufficient repeatability from a clinical perspective. Finally, ANOVA demonstrated that an insignificant amount of variance could be explained by block [F(1,21) = 0.02, p = 0.90].
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.