Fixed Handheld Dynamometry Provides Reliable and Valid Values for Quadriceps Isometric Strength in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quadriceps weakness is associated with poor clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, quadriceps isometric strength assessment has not been routinely adopted in clinical practice because of the lack of homogeneity in the devices and protocols and the lack of reliability studies. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine the test-retest reliability and the criterion validity of a commercially available handheld dynamometer for evaluating the quadriceps isometric maximal voluntary contraction (iMVCquad) using a standardized protocol and to investigate the relationship between iMVCquad and functional capacity in people with COPD. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. METHODS: Participants with mild to severe COPD from 4 Canadian sites were tested on 2 separate days. Five iMVCquad measurements were obtained following a standardized procedure with a fixed handheld dynamometer (iMVCquad-HHD), and then 5 iMVCquad measurements were obtained with a computerized dynamometer (iMVCquad-CD; the gold standard). Functional capacity was assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery. Intraclass correlation coefficients, standard errors of measurement, Bland-Altman plots, and Spearman correlation coefficients were used for analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-five participants (mean age = 69 years [SD = 8]; forced expiratory volume in 1 second = 48% of predicted value [SD = 21]) completed the study. The mean iMVCquad-HHD values on visits 1 and 2 were 102.7 (SD = 51.6) and 105.6 (SD = 58.8) N·m, respectively; the standard error of measurement was 11.4 N·m. The between-visits intraclass correlation coefficient for iMVCquad-HHD was 0.95 (95% confidence interval = 0.92-0.97), with a mean bias of 2.0 (Bland-Altman plot). There was a strong correlation between iMVCquad-HHD and iMVCquad-CD (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.86). There was no correlation between iMVCquad-HHD and Short Physical Performance Battery total score. LIMITATIONS: Participants had stable COPD with few comorbidities and were more physically active than the general population of people with COPD; results might not be applicable to patients with acute exacerbations of the disease or more comorbidities. Assessment order between handheld and computerized dynamometers has not been randomized, but analyses did not highlight any systematic bias or learning effect. CONCLUSIONS: Quadriceps strength assessment can be implemented in a reliable and valid way in people with COPD using a fixed handheld dynamometer and standardized procedure. This protocol should be established in clinical practice to facilitate the assessment of muscle strength in people with COPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".