Reliability of Dynamometric Measurements for Ankle Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.2
Foot & ankle international Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1177/10711007251339483
Cristina Jiménez-Ávila, Andrés Felipe Villaquiran-Hurtado, Daniel Jerez-Mayorga, Guido Contreras-Diaz
{"title":"Reliability of Dynamometric Measurements for Ankle Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Cristina Jiménez-Ávila, Andrés Felipe Villaquiran-Hurtado, Daniel Jerez-Mayorga, Guido Contreras-Diaz","doi":"10.1177/10711007251339483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Strength assessment is crucial for enhancing physical fitness, health, and injury prevention, particularly for the ankle joint, which is frequently injured in athletic activities. Despite technological advances, the reliability of dynamometric measurements for ankle strength varies because of differences in test procedures, equipment, and methodologies. This systematic review aimed to (1) examine the reliability of dynamometric strength measurements for ankle muscles in healthy individuals and athletes, (2) identify the most valid and reliable positions for strength measurement, and (3) determine the most reliable velocities for assessing ankle muscle strength.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of 4 electronic databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and PubMed) identified 556 studies, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. The reliability of the measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Data extraction and analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, with methodologic quality evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Tool and the Quality Appraisal tool for Reliability Studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most studies assessed ankle movements in a seated position, reporting ICC values between 0.42 and 0.97, with the majority showing good to excellent reliability (0.78-0.99). Dorsiflexion and plantarflexion movements demonstrated high reliability, whereas inversion and eversion showed greater variability (ICC 0.47-0.96). The most reliable velocities for isokinetic assessments were between 40 and 90 degrees/second. Eccentric and concentric strength measurements also exhibited good to excellent reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dynamometric measurements of ankle strength are generally reliable, especially in seated positions and at specific velocities (40-90 degrees/second). Standardizing assessment protocols can improve measurement consistency and accuracy, enhancing their utility in injury prevention and rehabilitation programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94011,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle international","volume":" ","pages":"925-940"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007251339483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Strength assessment is crucial for enhancing physical fitness, health, and injury prevention, particularly for the ankle joint, which is frequently injured in athletic activities. Despite technological advances, the reliability of dynamometric measurements for ankle strength varies because of differences in test procedures, equipment, and methodologies. This systematic review aimed to (1) examine the reliability of dynamometric strength measurements for ankle muscles in healthy individuals and athletes, (2) identify the most valid and reliable positions for strength measurement, and (3) determine the most reliable velocities for assessing ankle muscle strength.

Methods: A comprehensive search of 4 electronic databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and PubMed) identified 556 studies, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. The reliability of the measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Data extraction and analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, with methodologic quality evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Tool and the Quality Appraisal tool for Reliability Studies.

Results: Most studies assessed ankle movements in a seated position, reporting ICC values between 0.42 and 0.97, with the majority showing good to excellent reliability (0.78-0.99). Dorsiflexion and plantarflexion movements demonstrated high reliability, whereas inversion and eversion showed greater variability (ICC 0.47-0.96). The most reliable velocities for isokinetic assessments were between 40 and 90 degrees/second. Eccentric and concentric strength measurements also exhibited good to excellent reliability.

Conclusion: Dynamometric measurements of ankle strength are generally reliable, especially in seated positions and at specific velocities (40-90 degrees/second). Standardizing assessment protocols can improve measurement consistency and accuracy, enhancing their utility in injury prevention and rehabilitation programs.

动态测量踝关节肌肉力量的可靠性:系统综述。
背景:力量评估对于增强体质、健康和预防损伤至关重要,特别是对于在体育活动中经常受伤的踝关节。尽管技术进步,但由于测试程序、设备和方法的差异,踝关节强度的动态测量的可靠性有所不同。本系统综述旨在(1)检验健康个体和运动员踝关节肌肉动态力量测量的可靠性,(2)确定最有效和可靠的力量测量位置,(3)确定评估踝关节肌肉力量的最可靠速度。方法:对4个电子数据库(Web of Science、SCOPUS、EBSCO和PubMed)进行综合检索,确定了556项研究,其中13项符合本meta分析的纳入标准。使用类内相关系数(ICCs)评估测量结果的可靠性。数据提取和分析遵循PRISMA指南,使用关键评估工具和可靠性研究质量评估工具对方法学质量进行评估。结果:大多数研究评估了坐姿时的踝关节运动,报告的ICC值在0.42到0.97之间,大多数显示出良好到极好的可靠性(0.78-0.99)。背屈和跖屈运动表现出高可靠性,而倒置和外翻运动表现出更大的变异性(ICC 0.47-0.96)。最可靠的等速评估速度在40到90度/秒之间。偏心和同心强度测量也显示出良好到优异的可靠性。结论:踝关节强度的动态测量通常是可靠的,特别是在坐姿和特定速度(40-90度/秒)时。标准化评估协议可以提高测量的一致性和准确性,增强其在伤害预防和康复计划中的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信