A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing

Leili Shahgholi, Keith A. Bengtson, Allen Thorp Bishop, Alexander Yong-Shik Shin, Robert J. Spinner, Jeffrey R. Basford, Kenton R Kaufman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical ratings of elbow strength obtained by skilled clinicians with objective strength measurement obtained through quantitative testing. DESIGN: A retrospective comparison of subject clinical records with quantitative strength testing results in a motion analysis laboratory was conducted. A total of 110 individuals between the ages of 8 and 65 yrs with traumatic brachial plexus injuries were identified. Patients underwent manual muscle strength testing as assessed on the 5-point British Medical Research Council Scale (5/5, normal; 0/5, absent) and quantitative elbow flexion and extension strength measurements. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects had elbow flexion testing. Half of the subjects clinically assessed as having normal (5/5) elbow flexion strength on manual muscle testing exhibited less than 42% of their age-expected strength on quantitative testing. Eighty-four subjects had elbow extension strength testing. Similarly, half of those displaying normal elbow extension strength on manual muscle testing were found to have less than 62% of their age-expected values on quantitative testing. Significant differences between manual muscle testing and quantitative findings were not detected for the lesser (0-4) strength grades. CONCLUSIONS: Manual muscle testing, even when performed by experienced clinicians, may be more misleading than expected for subjects graded as having normal (5/5) strength. Manual muscle testing estimates for the lesser strength grades (1-4/5) seem reasonably accurate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)856-862
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume91
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Elbow
Muscles
Arm Injuries
Brachial Plexus
Muscle Strength
Biomedical Research

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Manual Muscle Test
  • Muscle Strength

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing. / Shahgholi, Leili; Bengtson, Keith A.; Bishop, Allen Thorp; Shin, Alexander Yong-Shik; Spinner, Robert J.; Basford, Jeffrey R.; Kaufman, Kenton R.

In: American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 91, No. 10, 10.2012, p. 856-862.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shahgholi, Leili ; Bengtson, Keith A. ; Bishop, Allen Thorp ; Shin, Alexander Yong-Shik ; Spinner, Robert J. ; Basford, Jeffrey R. ; Kaufman, Kenton R. / A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing. In: American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2012 ; Vol. 91, No. 10. pp. 856-862.
@article{21c1592152404ff49c882f89e60de7d6,
title = "A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical ratings of elbow strength obtained by skilled clinicians with objective strength measurement obtained through quantitative testing. DESIGN: A retrospective comparison of subject clinical records with quantitative strength testing results in a motion analysis laboratory was conducted. A total of 110 individuals between the ages of 8 and 65 yrs with traumatic brachial plexus injuries were identified. Patients underwent manual muscle strength testing as assessed on the 5-point British Medical Research Council Scale (5/5, normal; 0/5, absent) and quantitative elbow flexion and extension strength measurements. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects had elbow flexion testing. Half of the subjects clinically assessed as having normal (5/5) elbow flexion strength on manual muscle testing exhibited less than 42{\%} of their age-expected strength on quantitative testing. Eighty-four subjects had elbow extension strength testing. Similarly, half of those displaying normal elbow extension strength on manual muscle testing were found to have less than 62{\%} of their age-expected values on quantitative testing. Significant differences between manual muscle testing and quantitative findings were not detected for the lesser (0-4) strength grades. CONCLUSIONS: Manual muscle testing, even when performed by experienced clinicians, may be more misleading than expected for subjects graded as having normal (5/5) strength. Manual muscle testing estimates for the lesser strength grades (1-4/5) seem reasonably accurate.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, Manual Muscle Test, Muscle Strength",
author = "Leili Shahgholi and Bengtson, {Keith A.} and Bishop, {Allen Thorp} and Shin, {Alexander Yong-Shik} and Spinner, {Robert J.} and Basford, {Jeffrey R.} and Kaufman, {Kenton R}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/PHM.0b013e31825f14f9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "856--862",
journal = "American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0894-9115",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing

AU - Shahgholi, Leili

AU - Bengtson, Keith A.

AU - Bishop, Allen Thorp

AU - Shin, Alexander Yong-Shik

AU - Spinner, Robert J.

AU - Basford, Jeffrey R.

AU - Kaufman, Kenton R

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical ratings of elbow strength obtained by skilled clinicians with objective strength measurement obtained through quantitative testing. DESIGN: A retrospective comparison of subject clinical records with quantitative strength testing results in a motion analysis laboratory was conducted. A total of 110 individuals between the ages of 8 and 65 yrs with traumatic brachial plexus injuries were identified. Patients underwent manual muscle strength testing as assessed on the 5-point British Medical Research Council Scale (5/5, normal; 0/5, absent) and quantitative elbow flexion and extension strength measurements. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects had elbow flexion testing. Half of the subjects clinically assessed as having normal (5/5) elbow flexion strength on manual muscle testing exhibited less than 42% of their age-expected strength on quantitative testing. Eighty-four subjects had elbow extension strength testing. Similarly, half of those displaying normal elbow extension strength on manual muscle testing were found to have less than 62% of their age-expected values on quantitative testing. Significant differences between manual muscle testing and quantitative findings were not detected for the lesser (0-4) strength grades. CONCLUSIONS: Manual muscle testing, even when performed by experienced clinicians, may be more misleading than expected for subjects graded as having normal (5/5) strength. Manual muscle testing estimates for the lesser strength grades (1-4/5) seem reasonably accurate.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical ratings of elbow strength obtained by skilled clinicians with objective strength measurement obtained through quantitative testing. DESIGN: A retrospective comparison of subject clinical records with quantitative strength testing results in a motion analysis laboratory was conducted. A total of 110 individuals between the ages of 8 and 65 yrs with traumatic brachial plexus injuries were identified. Patients underwent manual muscle strength testing as assessed on the 5-point British Medical Research Council Scale (5/5, normal; 0/5, absent) and quantitative elbow flexion and extension strength measurements. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects had elbow flexion testing. Half of the subjects clinically assessed as having normal (5/5) elbow flexion strength on manual muscle testing exhibited less than 42% of their age-expected strength on quantitative testing. Eighty-four subjects had elbow extension strength testing. Similarly, half of those displaying normal elbow extension strength on manual muscle testing were found to have less than 62% of their age-expected values on quantitative testing. Significant differences between manual muscle testing and quantitative findings were not detected for the lesser (0-4) strength grades. CONCLUSIONS: Manual muscle testing, even when performed by experienced clinicians, may be more misleading than expected for subjects graded as having normal (5/5) strength. Manual muscle testing estimates for the lesser strength grades (1-4/5) seem reasonably accurate.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Manual Muscle Test

KW - Muscle Strength

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866947044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866947044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31825f14f9

DO - 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31825f14f9

M3 - Article

C2 - 22854900

AN - SCOPUS:84866947044

VL - 91

SP - 856

EP - 862

JO - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0894-9115

IS - 10

ER -