Why the study?
Manual muscle testing suffers from subjectivity, and investigating the reproducibility of testers' force profiles is required for its valid application.
Does tester experience affect the force profiles and reproducibility of manual muscle testing?
Does tester experience affect the force profiles and reproducibility of manual muscle testing?
Manual muscle testing force profiles vary significantly based on tester experience, highlighting the need for objective assessment and standardized force profiles.
Experience influences force profiles in manual muscle testing; leaves open whether standardization improves reproducibility.
The manual muscle test (MMT) is a flexible diagnostic tool, which is used in many disciplines, applied in several ways. The main problem is the subjectivity of the test. The MMT in the version of a “break test” depends on the tester’s force rise and the patient’s ability to resist the applied force. As a first step, the investigation of the reproducibility of the testers’ force profiles is required for valid application. The study examined the force profiles of n=29 testers (n=9 experiences (Exp), n=8 little experienced (LitExp), n =12 beginners (Beg)). The testers performed 10 MMTs according to the test of hip flexors, but against a fixed leg to exclude the patient’s reaction. A handheld device recorded the temporal course of the applied force. The results show significant differences between Exp and Beg concerning the starting force (padj=0.029), the ratio of starting to maximum force (padj=0.005) and the normalized mean Euclidean distances between the 10 trials (padj=0.015). The slope is significantly higher in Exp vs. LitExp (p=0.006) and Beg (p=0.005). The results also indicate that experienced testers show inter-tester differences and partly even a low intra-tester reproducibility. That highlights the necessity of an objective MMT-assessment. Furthermore, an agreement on a standardized force profile is required – a suggestion is given.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bittmann et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: