On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review.

Scott C Cuthbert, George J Goodheart
{"title":"On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review.","authors":"Scott C Cuthbert,&nbsp;George J Goodheart","doi":"10.1186/1746-1340-15-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A body of basic science and clinical research has been generated on the manual muscle test (MMT) since its first peer-reviewed publication in 1915. The aim of this report is to provide an historical overview, literature review, description, synthesis and critique of the reliability and validity of MMT in the evaluation of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online resources were searched including Pubmed and CINAHL (each from inception to June 2006). The search terms manual muscle testing or manual muscle test were used. Relevant peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and reviews were selected. The two reviewers assessed data quality independently, with selection standards based on predefined methodologic criteria. Studies of MMT were categorized by research content type: inter- and intraexaminer reliability studies, and construct, content, concurrent and predictive validity studies. Each study was reviewed in terms of its quality and contribution to knowledge regarding MMT, and its findings presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed, including studies on the clinical efficacy of MMT in the diagnosis of patients with symptomatology. With regard to analysis there is evidence for good reliability and validity in the use of MMT for patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction. The observational cohort studies demonstrated good external and internal validity, and the 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were reviewed show that MMT findings were not dependent upon examiner bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MMT employed by chiropractors, physical therapists, and neurologists was shown to be a clinically useful tool, but its ultimate scientific validation and application requires testing that employs sophisticated research models in the areas of neurophysiology, biomechanics, RCTs, and statistical analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":87173,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","volume":"15 ","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1746-1340-15-4","citationCount":"403","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-15-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 403

Abstract

Introduction: A body of basic science and clinical research has been generated on the manual muscle test (MMT) since its first peer-reviewed publication in 1915. The aim of this report is to provide an historical overview, literature review, description, synthesis and critique of the reliability and validity of MMT in the evaluation of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.

Methods: Online resources were searched including Pubmed and CINAHL (each from inception to June 2006). The search terms manual muscle testing or manual muscle test were used. Relevant peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and reviews were selected. The two reviewers assessed data quality independently, with selection standards based on predefined methodologic criteria. Studies of MMT were categorized by research content type: inter- and intraexaminer reliability studies, and construct, content, concurrent and predictive validity studies. Each study was reviewed in terms of its quality and contribution to knowledge regarding MMT, and its findings presented.

Results: More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed, including studies on the clinical efficacy of MMT in the diagnosis of patients with symptomatology. With regard to analysis there is evidence for good reliability and validity in the use of MMT for patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction. The observational cohort studies demonstrated good external and internal validity, and the 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were reviewed show that MMT findings were not dependent upon examiner bias.

Conclusion: The MMT employed by chiropractors, physical therapists, and neurologists was shown to be a clinically useful tool, but its ultimate scientific validation and application requires testing that employs sophisticated research models in the areas of neurophysiology, biomechanics, RCTs, and statistical analysis.

手部肌肉测试的信度和效度:文献回顾。
自1915年首次同行评议出版以来,手工肌肉测试(MMT)的基础科学和临床研究已经产生。本报告的目的是提供历史概述,文献综述,描述,综合和批评的可靠性和有效性的MMT在评估肌肉骨骼和神经系统。方法:检索Pubmed和CINAHL在线资源(各检索时间为建站至2006年6月)。检索词为手工肌肉测试或手工肌肉测试。选择了相关的同行评议研究、评论和评论。两位审稿人独立评估数据质量,选择标准基于预定义的方法标准。对MMT的研究按研究内容类型进行分类:主考官之间和主考官内部的信度研究,结构效度、内容效度、并发效度和预测效度研究。对每项研究的质量和对MMT知识的贡献进行了回顾,并提出了研究结果。结果:回顾了100多项与MMT相关的研究,以及运用MMT方法的应用运动学捏脊技术(AK),包括MMT在症状诊断中的临床疗效研究。在分析方面,有证据表明MMT用于神经肌肉骨骼功能障碍患者具有良好的信度和效度。观察性队列研究显示出良好的外部和内部有效性,12项随机对照试验(rct)的回顾表明,MMT结果不依赖于审稿人的偏倚。结论:脊椎指压治疗师、物理治疗师和神经学家使用的MMT被证明是一种临床有用的工具,但其最终的科学验证和应用需要在神经生理学、生物力学、随机对照试验和统计分析领域采用复杂的研究模型进行测试。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信