Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41769410›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Assessing the reliability of baseline maximum voluntary contraction protocols.

Gillian E Slade, Michael W B Watterworth, Nicholas J La Delfa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gillian E SladeHealth Science (Kinesiology), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
Michael W B WatterworthHealth Science (Kinesiology), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicholas J La DelfaHealth Science (Kinesiology), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contractions (MVICs) are commonly used to normalize contraction intensity as a percentage of maximum; however, there is substantial variation in reported baseline MVIC protocols and no known consensus on their reliability. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine the method of baseline MVIC calculation that maximizes between-session reliability. Methods: Eighteen participants performed five knee extension, elbow flexion, and hand grip MVICs during four experimental sessions. Thirty-two methods of calculating baseline MVIC were evaluated using differing numbers of contractions, using the peak or average, and the presence of a familiarisation session and/or practice contraction. The level of significance was set at Results: Within-day Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) estimates ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for all contraction types and sessions, with between-day ICC estimates ranging from 0.85 to 0.99. Reliability marginally increased as more contractions were factored for both average and peak. Familiarisation and practice only improved reliability for elbow flexion. All baseline MVIC methods had acceptable between-day reliability. Multiple approaches to calculating baseline MVIC are reliable, but the most efficient method is to use the peak of one contraction. This approach balances high reliability with reduced participant fatigue and testing time, making it a practical option for both research and clinical applications.

Indexed as

Isometric ContractionMuscle, SkeletalAdultFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleMuscle StrengthReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultBaseline strengthElbowExercise scienceHand gripKneeReliabilityStrength

Identifiers

PMID41769410
PMCPMC12947764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.