Objective: To describe the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of manual muscle testing.
Design: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional strength data.
Setting: Acute rehabilitation unit.
Participants: Convenience sample of 107 consecutive qualifying rehabilitation inpatients.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Main outcome measures: Knee extension forces measured by manual muscle testing and hand-held dynamometry.
Results: The ability of manual muscle testing to detect 15, 20, 25 and 30% between-side differences and deficits in knee extension force was described. Although the specificity of manual muscle testing was acceptable (mostly>80%), its sensitivity to differences between sides and to deficits relative to normal never exceeded 75%. Its diagnostic accuracy was never greater than 78%.
Conclusion: The results of this study cast doubt on the suitability of manual muscle testing as a screening test for strength impairments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Aitkens S, Lord J, Bernauer E, Fowler WM, Lieberman JS, Berck P. Relationship of manual muscle testing to objective strength measurements. Muscle Nerve1989; 12: 173–177.
2.
2 Bohannon RW. Alternatives for measuring knee extension strength of the elderly at home. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 435–440.
3.
3 Bohannon RW. Measuring knee extensor muscle strength. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2001; 80:13–18.
4.
4 Laing BA, Mastaglia FL, Lo SK, Zilko P. Comparative assessment of knee strength using hand-held myometry and isokinetic dynamometry in patients with inflammatory myopathy. Physiother Theory Pract1995; 11: 151–156.
5.
5 Beasley WC. Influence of method on estimates of normal knee extensor force among normal and post polio children. Phys Ther Rev1956; 36:21–41.
6.
6 Dvir Z. Grade 4 in manual muscle testing: the problem with submaximal strength assessment. Clin Rehabil1997; 11:36–41.
7.
7 Ellenbecker TS. Muscular strength relationship between normal grade manual muscle testing and isokinetic measurement of the shoulder internal and external rotators. Isokinet Exerc Sci1996; 6:51–56.
8.
8 Saranti AJ, Gleim GW, Melvin M, Nicholas JA. The relationship between subjective and objective measurements of strength. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther1980; 2:15–19.
9.
9 Schwartz S, Cohen ME, Herbison GJ, Shah A. Relationship between two measures of upper extremity strength: manual muscle test compared to hand-held myometry. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 1063–1068.
10.
10 Stratford PW. Applying the results from diagnostic accuracy studies to enhance clinical decision making. Physiother Theory Pract2001; 17: 153–160.
11.
11 Davidson M. The interpretation of diagnostic tests: a primer for physiotherapists. Aust J Physiother2002; 48: 227–232.
12.
12 Eriksrud O, Bohannon RW. Relationship of knee extension force to independence in sit-to-stand performance in patients receiving acute rehabilitation. Phys Ther2003; 83: 544–551.
13.
13 Hislop HJ, Montgomery J. Daniels and Worthingham's muscle testing: techniques of manual examination, sixth edition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co, 1995: 208–210.
14.
14 Bohannon RW. Reference values for extremity muscle strength obtained by hand-held dynamometry from adults aged 20–79 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78:26–32.
15.
15 Lincoln NB, Nicholl CR, Flannaghan T, Leonard M, VanderGuht E. The validity of questionnaire measures for assessing depression after stroke. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 840–846.
16.
16 Mulroy SJ, Lassen KD, Chambers SH, Perry J. The ability of male and female clinicians to effectively test knee extension strength using manual muscle testing. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther1997; 26: 192–199.
