Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8819238›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)1996

The use of isometric tests of muscular function in athletic assessment.

G J Wilson, A J Murphy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 263 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G J WilsonCentre For Exercise Science & Sport Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. gwilson@scu.edu.au
A J Murphy
Deakin University · AUSouthern Cross University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Isometric assessment of muscular function is a popular form of testing which has been used in exercise science for over 40 years. It typically involves a maximal voluntary contraction performed at a specified joint angle against an unyielding resistance which is in series with a strain gauge, cable tensiometer, force platform or similar device whose transducer measures the applied force. Often both the maximum force and the rate of force development are recorded. These tests have generally shown high reliability in both single and multi-joint test protocols, although the maximum force is typically more reliable than rate of force development. This review outlines the reliability of isometric assessment and discusses a number of methodological considerations designed to enhance reliability and validity, including standardisation procedures, type of instructions, muscular pre-tension, testing position and joint angle. Currently, there appears to be considerable controversy as to the external validity of isometric assessment, particularly the ability of the tests to monitor changes in dynamic performance and their relationship to such performances. Indeed, a number of studies have recently shown that dynamic assessment modalities (isokinetic and isoinertial) are superior in terms of their relationship to dynamic performance and ability to discriminate between athletes of various performance levels compared with isometric assessment. This article reviews the use of isometric assessment in exercise science and consequently outlines a number of neural, mechanical and methodological factors which may have contributed to the contrasting research, and which may limit the ability of isometric assessment to relate to dynamic movement. Because of the large neural and mechanical differences between isometric and dynamic muscular actions, athletic assessment, which is dynamic in its nature, is generally most appropriately accomplished using dynamic muscular assessment methods, and in most instances isometric testing should be avoided.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaElbow JointHumansMuscle, SkeletalReproducibility of ResultsSports

Identifiers

PMID8819238
OpenAlexW1966856497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.