ArticleSpine surgery and related research2026
Reliability and Validity of Isometric Back Extensor Strength Measurements Using Hand-Held and Isokinetic Dynamometry in Sitting and Semi-Standing Positions.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2026. 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
Introduction: The prone position is generally regarded as the standard posture for back extensor strength testing. However, some older adults may have difficulty assuming this position, making alternative approaches more clinically feasible. It remains unclear whether measurements obtained in the sitting and semi-standing positions demonstrate sufficient validity compared with those in the prone position. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of isometric back extensor strength measurements using hand-held dynamometry (HHD) in the sitting position and the Biodex system in the semi-standing position. The results were compared with measurements in the prone position. Methods: Thirty-four healthy adults (10 males and 24 females; mean age, 23.8 years) participated. Back extensor strength was assessed using three methods: HHD in the prone, HHD in the sitting position, and the Biodex system in the semi-standing position. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using two sessions. Convergent validity of HHD in the sitting position and the Biodex in the semi-standing position was examined and compared with prone HHD, which served as a reference standard. Results: The semi-standing Biodex demonstrated excellent reliability and sufficient convergent validity compared with prone HHD, whereas HHD in the sitting position showed acceptable reliability but limited validity. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated excellent reliability for prone HHD (ICC=0.95) and semi-standing Biodex (ICC=0.92), while sitting HHD showed acceptable reliability (ICC=0.76). Regarding convergent validity, the Biodex in the semi-standing position showed a moderate correlation with prone HHD (r=0.60), whereas sitting HHD showed a weaker correlation (r=0.45). Conclusions: The Biodex system in the semi-standing position demonstrated excellent reliability and sufficient validity for assessing back extensor strength. In contrast, HHD in the sitting position showed acceptable reliability but limited validity, which may be influenced by the measurement protocol used. Further studies are needed to improve measurement protocols, particularly for use in older adults and clinical populations.
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.