Neal R Glaviano, Emma F Zuk, Lauren Sheldon, Michael DiStefano, Laurie Devaney
{"title":"基于推和拉的手持式测力仪的下肢强度有效性:一份技术报告。","authors":"Neal R Glaviano, Emma F Zuk, Lauren Sheldon, Michael DiStefano, Laurie Devaney","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Handheld dynamometers provide clinicians an objective measure of lower-extremity force production at the hip and knee. While push-based dynamometers are common in clinical practice, they can be associated with patient discomfort, and standardization of methods is challenging when patient forces can exceed the ability of the rater. Development of novel, pull-based dynamometers allow for better patient comfort, but validity between dynamometers must be established before integration into clinical practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare measurement of lower-extremity force between push- and pull-based handheld dynamometers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive laboratory study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one healthy triathletes performed isometric hip abduction, hip external rotation, and knee extension testing against 2 separate handheld dynamometers. Pearson product correlations were calculated for the relationship between devices, while Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement with limit of agreement to assess systematic bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correlations between devices were strong for hip abduction and knee extension (r = .743-.767, P < .001) and moderate for hip external rotation (r = .429, P = .052). Additionally, there was good agreement between the 2 devices, with acceptable limits of agreement across the 3 force tasks. The pull-based dynamometer resulted in greater torque values for knee-extension and hip external rotation, with a mean difference of -0.37 and -0.19 N·m/kg, but there was no difference in hip abduction with a mean difference of 0.03 N·m/kg.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results demonstrate that pull-based dynamometers are an acceptable alternative to push-based dynamometers for hip abduction and knee extension, but some caution may exist for hip external rotation. Clinicians should be aware of differences in lower-extremity force across multiple handheld dynamometers when assessing muscle function in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of Lower-Extremity Strength Between Push- and Pull-Based Handheld Dynamometers: A Technical Report.\",\"authors\":\"Neal R Glaviano, Emma F Zuk, Lauren Sheldon, Michael DiStefano, Laurie Devaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/jsr.2024-0108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Handheld dynamometers provide clinicians an objective measure of lower-extremity force production at the hip and knee. While push-based dynamometers are common in clinical practice, they can be associated with patient discomfort, and standardization of methods is challenging when patient forces can exceed the ability of the rater. Development of novel, pull-based dynamometers allow for better patient comfort, but validity between dynamometers must be established before integration into clinical practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare measurement of lower-extremity force between push- and pull-based handheld dynamometers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive laboratory study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one healthy triathletes performed isometric hip abduction, hip external rotation, and knee extension testing against 2 separate handheld dynamometers. Pearson product correlations were calculated for the relationship between devices, while Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement with limit of agreement to assess systematic bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correlations between devices were strong for hip abduction and knee extension (r = .743-.767, P < .001) and moderate for hip external rotation (r = .429, P = .052). Additionally, there was good agreement between the 2 devices, with acceptable limits of agreement across the 3 force tasks. The pull-based dynamometer resulted in greater torque values for knee-extension and hip external rotation, with a mean difference of -0.37 and -0.19 N·m/kg, but there was no difference in hip abduction with a mean difference of 0.03 N·m/kg.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results demonstrate that pull-based dynamometers are an acceptable alternative to push-based dynamometers for hip abduction and knee extension, but some caution may exist for hip external rotation. Clinicians should be aware of differences in lower-extremity force across multiple handheld dynamometers when assessing muscle function in practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0108\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0108","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:手持式测功机为临床医生提供了髋关节和膝关节下肢力量产生的客观测量。虽然基于推力的测力计在临床实践中很常见,但它们可能与患者不适有关,当患者的力量可能超过测力计的能力时,方法的标准化是具有挑战性的。新型拉力式测力仪的开发可以提高患者的舒适度,但在应用于临床实践之前,必须确定测力仪之间的有效性。因此,本研究的目的是比较基于推和拉的手持式测力仪对下肢力的测量。设计:描述性实验室研究。方法:21名健康的铁人三项运动员在2台独立的手持式测功机上进行髋外展、髋外旋和膝关节伸展测试。皮尔逊产品相关性计算设备之间的关系,而Bland-Altman图用于测量一致性与一致性限制,以评估系统偏倚。结果:髋关节外展和膝关节外展的器械相关性强(r = .743-)。767, P < 0.001)和中度髋外旋(r = .429, P = .052)。此外,两个设备之间有很好的一致性,在3个force任务之间有可接受的一致性限制。拉力测功仪在膝关节伸展和髋关节外旋时的扭矩值更大,平均差值分别为-0.37和-0.19 N·m/kg,但在髋关节外展时无差异,平均差值为0.03 N·m/kg。结论:结果表明,在髋关节外展和膝关节伸展时,基于拉力的测功机是一种可接受的替代基于推力的测功机,但在髋关节外旋时可能存在一些谨慎。临床医生在实践中评估肌肉功能时,应该意识到多个手持式测功机在下肢力方面的差异。
Validity of Lower-Extremity Strength Between Push- and Pull-Based Handheld Dynamometers: A Technical Report.
Context: Handheld dynamometers provide clinicians an objective measure of lower-extremity force production at the hip and knee. While push-based dynamometers are common in clinical practice, they can be associated with patient discomfort, and standardization of methods is challenging when patient forces can exceed the ability of the rater. Development of novel, pull-based dynamometers allow for better patient comfort, but validity between dynamometers must be established before integration into clinical practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare measurement of lower-extremity force between push- and pull-based handheld dynamometers.
Design: Descriptive laboratory study.
Methods: Twenty-one healthy triathletes performed isometric hip abduction, hip external rotation, and knee extension testing against 2 separate handheld dynamometers. Pearson product correlations were calculated for the relationship between devices, while Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement with limit of agreement to assess systematic bias.
Results: Correlations between devices were strong for hip abduction and knee extension (r = .743-.767, P < .001) and moderate for hip external rotation (r = .429, P = .052). Additionally, there was good agreement between the 2 devices, with acceptable limits of agreement across the 3 force tasks. The pull-based dynamometer resulted in greater torque values for knee-extension and hip external rotation, with a mean difference of -0.37 and -0.19 N·m/kg, but there was no difference in hip abduction with a mean difference of 0.03 N·m/kg.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that pull-based dynamometers are an acceptable alternative to push-based dynamometers for hip abduction and knee extension, but some caution may exist for hip external rotation. Clinicians should be aware of differences in lower-extremity force across multiple handheld dynamometers when assessing muscle function in practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant.
JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.