ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Bilateral strength asymmetry in knee extension: a reliability and consistency analysis for scientific and practical applications.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Muscular strength imbalances are associated with musculoskeletal injuries and performance deficits. This study aimed to assess the reliability and consistency of bilateral strength asymmetry (BSA) in quadriceps muscles as determined by dynamometry. Methods: Twenty-nine physically active participants underwent a familiarization and two test sessions, assessing isometric (100°, 140° knee angles) and isokinetic (30° s Results: No significant differences in mean PT or BSA were found between sessions. However, considerable individual variability was observed, with 21%-38% of participants showing between session limb dominance reversals. ICC values ranged from 0.33 to 0.70 (poor to moderate reliability), SEM from 5.0% to 8.3%, and MDC from 13.9% to 22.9%. Kappa coefficients indicated less than chance to moderate agreement for limb dominance between sessions (0.19-0.59) and within sessions (-0.05-0.50). Bland-Altman analyses revealed small bias but wide limits of agreement. Conclusions: BSA measurements demonstrated low reliability and inconsistency, with significant individual variability and frequent limb dominance reversals. These findings raise concerns about the use of fixed asymmetry thresholds for injury risk assessment. Task-specificity and individual motor control variations may contribute to these inconsistencies. Future studies should consider habituation and standardized training protocols before evaluating BSA reliability. The results emphasize the need for cautious interpretation of BSA data and highlight limitations in its direct clinical application.
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.