Dataset Information

A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Four Field-Based Trunk Extension Endurance Tests.

ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the inter- and intra-tester reliability of endurance measures obtained through trunk extension field-based tests and to explore the influence of the moderators on the reliability estimates. The reliability induction rate of trunk extension endurance measures was also calculated. A systematic search was conducted using various databases, and subsequently 28 studies were selected that reported intraclass correlation coefficients for trunk extension endurance measures. Separate meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. When possible, analyses of potential moderator variables were carried out. The inter-tester average reliability of the endurance measure obtained from the Biering-Sorensen test was intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.94. The intra-session reliability estimates of the endurance measures recorded using the Biering-Sorensen test, the prone isometric chest raise test, and the prone double straight-leg test were ICC = 0.88, 0.90, and 0.86, respectively. The inter-session average reliability of the endurance measures from the Biering-Sorensen test, the prone isometric chest raise test, and the dynamic extensor endurance test were ICC = 0.88, 0.95, and 0.99, respectively. However, due to the limited evidence available, the reliability estimates of the measures obtained through the prone isometric chest raise, prone double straight-leg, and dynamic extensor endurance tests should be considered with a degree of caution. Position control instruments, tools, and familiarization session demonstrated a statistical association with the inter-session reliability of the Biering-Sorensen test. The reliability induction rate was 72.8%. Only the trunk extension endurance measure obtained through the Biering-Sorensen test presented sufficient scientific evidence in terms of reliability to justify its use for research and practical purposes.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Romero MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246735 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Four Field-Based Trunk Extension Endurance Tests.

Martínez-Romero María Teresa MT Ayala Francisco F De Ste Croix Mark M Vera-Garcia Francisco J FJ Sainz de Baranda Pilar P Santonja-Medina Fernando F Sánchez-Meca Julio J

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200429 9

This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the inter- and intra-tester reliability of endurance measures obtained through trunk extension field-based tests and to explore the influence of the moderators on the reliability estimates. The reliability induction rate of trunk extension endurance measures was also calculated. A systematic search was conducted using various databases, and subsequently 28 studies were selected that reported intraclass correlation coefficients for trunk extension endurance me ...[more]

PMID: 32365490

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdequate trunk muscle endurance is considered to be an important indicator of good low back stability; therefore, its assessment is needed when determining an individual's risk for back pain. Optimal tests to assess each trunk muscle group separately are difficult to find. The objective of this study was to verify if two groups of trunk muscle endurance tests (standard and alternative) show comparable results in terms of muscle endurance ratios, holding times and rated perceived effort to perform each test.MethodsThe study was designed as a quasi-experimental repeated-measures design. There was a single group of participants who took part in two different trunk muscle endurance testing. Sixty-eight healthy adult volunteers, aged 20-45 years (31.9 ± 7.2 years), without recent musculoskeletal injury or disorder participated in the study. All participants finished the study. Trunk muscle endurance tests as tested on the Roman chair (B tests) were compared with standard tests as suggested by McGill (A tests). Each group of tests consisted of an endurance test for trunk extensors, trunk flexors, and lateral trunk muscles for left and right side. The order of tests' performances was randomly assigned to each participant, whereby a participant did perform A and B tests in the same order. In each test of A and B the holding time was recorded and a perceived effort in each test performance was also assessed by participants. Post testing performance the four ratios of trunk muscles endurance comparison were calculated for each group of tests to determine if there is a good or poor ratio between muscles. Results of each participant were compared for trunk muscle endurance ratio calculations, holding times and rated perceived effort for A and B tests.ResultsResults showed comparable trunk muscle endurance ratios in the three ratios observed, except for the flexors:extensors ratio (AFL:EX: 1.2 (IQR: 0.7-1.6) vs. BFL:EX: 0.6 (IQR: 0.3-0.8); p < 0.001). As compared to A tests, holding times were significantly longer in B tests for the extensors (AEX: 125.5 s (IQR: 104.8-182.8 s) vs. BEX: 284.0 s (IQR: 213.0-342.3 s); p < 0.001) and lateral trunk muscles (AL-LM: 61.0 s (IQR: 48.3-80.8 s) vs. BL-LM: 131.5 s (IQR: 95.5-158.5 s); AR-LM: 63.5 s (IQR: 45.8-77.3 s) vs. BR-LM: 113.0 s (IQR: 86.3-148.8 s); p < 0.001), both were also rated as slightly easier to perform in the extensors (ARPE-EX: 13 (IQR: 12.0-14.0) vs BRPE-EX: 11 (IQR: 10.0-13.0); pRPE-EX < 0.001) and lateral muscles testing (ARPE-LM: 14.0 (IQR: 12.3-15.8) vs. BRPE-LM: 13.0 (IQR: 12.0-15.0); pRPE-LM = 0.001).ConclusionsA and B tests are comparable in three of four trunk muscle endurance ratios, while longer holding times and lower perceived effort to perform were observed in most of the B tests. The Roman chair tests could be used as an alternative to standard tests.

Project description:BackgroundDifferent field tests are used to evaluate muscle capacity, in particular maximal voluntary isometric endurance. However, although there are some normative values for a few muscle endurance tests, these do not consider the weight, height, gender, or age of individuals, which are well-known factors that influence muscle performance.Hypothesis/purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reproducibility of eight field tests and establish muscle endurance norms, in a healthy population, based on their anthropometric characteristics, which could allow the optimal evaluation of the entire muscle function in a quick manner.DesignCase series.MethodsThis study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was to check the reproducibility inter- and intra-assessor for eight isometric muscle field tests on 20 volunteer subjects aged 40.9 ± 11.6 years old (age range, 21-58 years). The second part was to establish muscle maximal voluntary isometric endurance norms according to these tests on a total of 400 healthy participants grouped by age (50 males and females in each of the age brackets, 20-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59 years old, for a total of 200 males and 200 females).ResultsThe intra- and inter-assessor reproducibility tests are good for all muscle measurements (the intraclass correlation coefficients varied between 0.915 and 0.996 and the coefficient of variation between 3.6 and 11.8%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates a good sensibility with values greater than 0.7 for each test. Each muscle belt presents same ratio regardless of the age and gender group. The simultaneous multiple regression analyses highlight that the anthropometric characteristics of subjects influence significantly the performance of isometric tests.ConclusionThis study has permitted establishing prediction equations in a healthy population according to their anthropometric characteristics as well as agonist/antagonist ratios for eight muscle isometric field tests after demonstrating a good reproducibility of all tests.

Project description:BackgroundTo overcome the limitations of conventional malaria rapid diagnostic tests (cRDTs) in diagnosing malaria in patients with low parasitaemia, ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic tests (uRDTs) have recently been developed, with promising results under laboratory conditions. The current study is the first meta-analysis comparing the overall sensitivity, and specificity of newly developed ultrasensitive Plasmodium falciparum malaria RDT (Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT) with the cRDT conducted in the same field conditions.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane infectious diseases group specialized register, and African Journals Online (AJOL) were searched up to 20th April 2021. Studies with enough data to compute sensitivity and specificity of uRDT and cRDT were retrieved. A random-effect model for meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled sensitivity and specificity.ResultsOverall, 15 data sets from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of the Alere™ ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 55.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.5; 65.0), while the sensitivity regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 42.9% (95% CI: 31.5; 55.2) for the cRDT performed in the same field conditions. When PCR was used as reference test, the sensitivity of uRDT was 60.4% (95% CI: 50.8; 69.2), while the sensitivity was 49.4% (95% CI: 38.2; 60.6) for the cRDT. The pooled specificity of uRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.1; 99.4), and the pooled specificity of cRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 99.3% (95% CI: 98.1; 99.7). When PCR was used as reference test the specificity of uRDT and cRDT was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1; 98.9) and 98.2% (95% CI: 95.5; 99.3). Regardless of the reference test used, the sensitivity of Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT in symptomatic patients was 72.1% (95%CI: 67.4; 76.4), while sensitivity of cRDT was 67.4% (95%CI: 57.6; 75.9).ConclusionFindings of the meta-analysis show that Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT compared to cRDT performed in the same field conditions has higher sensitivity but lower specificity although the difference is not statistically significant.

Project description:PURPOSE:Assess the impact of false-positives (FP), false-negatives (FN), fixation losses (FL), and test duration (TD) on visual field (VF) reliability at different stages of glaucoma severity. DESIGN:Retrospective. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 10?262 VFs from 1538 eyes of 909 subjects with suspect or manifest glaucoma and ?5 VF examinations. METHODS:Predicted mean deviation (MD) was calculated with multilevel modeling of longitudinal data. Differences between predicted and observed MD (?MD) were calculated as a reliability measure. The impact of FP, FN, FL, and TD on ?MD was assessed using multilevel modeling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:?MD associated with a 10% increment in FP, FN, and FL, or a 1-minute increase in TD. RESULTS:FL had little impact on ?MD (<0.2 decibels [dB] per 10% abnormal catch trials), and no level of FL produced ?1 dB of ?MD at any disease stage. FP yielded greater than expected MD, with a 10% increment in abnormal catch trials associated with a ?MD = 0.42, 0.73, and 0.66 dB in mild (MD >-6 dB), moderate (-6 ?MD <-12 dB), and severe (-12 ?MD ?-20 dB) disease, respectively, up to 20% abnormal catch trials, and a ?MD = 1.57, 2.06, and 3.53 dB beyond 20% abnormal catch trials. FNs generally produced observed MDs below expected MDs. FN were minimally impactful up to 20% abnormal catch trials (?MD per 10% increment >-0.14 dB at all levels of severity). Beyond 20% abnormal catch trials, each 10% increment in abnormal catch trials was associated with a ?MD = -1.27, -0.53, and -0.51 dB in mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively. |?MD| ?1 dB occurred with 22% FP and 26% FN in early, 14% FP and 34% FN in moderate, and 16% FP and 51% FN in severe disease. A 1-minute increment in TD produced ?MDs between -0.35 and -0.40 dB. CONCLUSIONS:FL have little impact on reliability in patients with established glaucoma. FP, and to a lesser extent FNs and TD, significantly affect reliability. The impact of FP and FN varies with disease severity and over the range of abnormal catch trials. On the basis of our findings, we present evidence-based, severity-specific standards for classifying VF reliability for clinical or research applications.

Dataset Information

A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Four Field-Based Trunk Extension Endurance Tests.

Publications

A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Four Field-Based Trunk Extension Endurance Tests.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets