Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The difference between isokinetic eccentric to concentric strength ratios at high and low velocities (DEC) is a powerful tool for identifying submaximal effort in other muscle groups but its efficiency in terms of the wrist extensors (WE) and flexors (WF) isokinetic effort has hitherto not been studied.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the present study is to examine the usefulness of the DEC for identifying suboptimal wrist extensor and flexor isokinetic efforts.

METHODS:

Twenty healthy male volunteers aged 20–40 years (28.5 $\pm$ 3.2) were recruited. Participants were instructed to exert maximal and feigned efforts, using a range of motion of 20 ${}^{\circ}$ in concentric (C) and eccentric (E) WE and WF modes at two velocities: 10 and 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s. E/C ratios (E/CR) where then calculated and finally DEC by subtracting low velocity E/CR from high velocity ones.

RESULTS:

Feigned maximal effort DEC values were significantly higher than their maximal effort counterparts, both for WF and WE. For both actions, a DEC cutoff level to detect submaximal effort could be defined. The sensitivity of the DEC was 71.43% and 62.5% for WE ad WF respectively. The specificity was 100% in both cases.

CONCLUSION:

The DEC may be a valuable parameter for detecting feigned maximal WF and WE isokinetic effort in healthy adults.

Keywords

Feigning maximal effort identification medico-legal aspects muscle strength dynamometer

1. Introduction

Injuries involving the elbow and forearm, especially lateral and medial epicondylitis, are, together with those involving the shoulder, the knees and the back, among the main causes of occupational disease and musculoskeletal disorders [1]. Evaluation of forearm muscle strength should be an essential component to assess the functional status of patient presenting with upper limb disorders. In patients with epicondylitis, forearm muscle strength assessment has been used as an evaluation or research tool [2, 3]. In fact, exercise is considered to be the cornerstone of rehabilitation [4] and althought the dose and type is still not fully clarified, strengthening programs have shown to be effective in epicondylitis treatment [5, 6, 7]. Wrist muscle strength measurement performed using isokinetic dynamometry provides accurate and reproducible findings [8, 9, 10]. Isokinetic test results can serve as guidelines for planning and monitoring strength-training programs, as well as for establishing permanent impairments. However, patient collaboration is crucial in order to generate reliable results. Thus estimation of the level of collaboration, namely maximality of effort, during an isokinetic strength test is of great interest, particularly when medico-legal claims are involved.

A number of parameters such as coefficient of variation (CV), eccentric to concentric ratios (E/CR) and, specially, difference between isokinetic eccentric to concentric strength ratios at high and low velocities (DEC) have been advocated to differentiate between maximal and submaximal efforts using isokinetic testing [11, 12, 21, 22, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. Among them, the DEC is the most widely accepted. Specifically, DEC has been proven to be highly effective at identifying feigned maximal muscular effort in different joints and actions in healthy adults [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22] and in patients [18, 23, 24].

It has been postulated that the effectiveness of DEC depends on the different central nervous system pathways of activation and control of concentric contractions compared to their eccentric counterparts [25, 26]. It has also been proven that submaximal eccentric strength modulation differs from concentric one [27]. Such fact may explain that in submaximal efforts, i.e. when individuals try to produce less strength than what they are capable of, E/CR increases have been observed, especially at high velocities, which in turn increase the value of the DEC. This increase in DEC in submaximal situations makes it possible to establish, based on studies involving volunteers, cut-off levels to determine whether an isokinetic test hast been submaximal, namely whether the individual has not developed maximal possible strength [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22].

To the best of our knowledge, the efficiency of the DEC for detecting submaximal wrist extensors (WE) and wrist flexors (WF) isokinetic strength has not been studied, hence the present study.

As has been mentioned above, DEC is a valid parameter for detecting submaximal effort in different joints. So, the present study hypothesizes that the strength in concentric and eccentric modalities in two velocities could led to a valid DEC results in order to determinate a submaximal effort in wrist muscles.

Therefore, the research question for this experimental criterion standard study was:

Is the DEC a useful tool for identifying submaximal effort during WE and WF isokinetic effort performance?

2. Method

2.1 Design

Experimental study.

2.2 Participants

Twenty healthy male volunteers aged 20–40 years (mean: 28.5 $\pm$ 3.2) without prior history of elbow, wrist or hand pathology took part in this study. All parti-cipants signed an informed consent form, which contained detailed information about the study. The study was reviewed and approved by the local Ethics Review Board of the Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa, Terrassa, Catalonia on 10/01/2010. The study was performed at a biomechanics laboratory by the first author of the study.

2.3 Outcome measures

The test was conducted using a CONTREX (CMV AG, Dübendorf/Switzerland) isokinetic dynamometer. The main parameter registered was peak moment (PM).

Participants were sat and stabilised using cross-chest straps. During the test, the elbow was flexed at 90 ${}^{\circ}$ with forearm in maximal pronation. The dynamometer axis was aligned with the ulnar styloid. Two special forearm straps were placed, one towards the front and one towards the back, in order to prevent it from moving during the test.

The approximate duration of the test was 40 minutes and it was performed exclusively on the dominant side. The range of motion (RoM) was set at 20 ${}^{\circ}$ (from 10 ${}^{\circ}$ of wrist flexion to 10 ${}^{\circ}$ of wrist extension), which was selected due to the excellent tolerance reported by patients in preliminary tests. According to previously defined recommendations [28] the low and high velocities were set at 10 and 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s respectively, namely a 1:4 gradient.

In order to analyse to what extent the DEC was effective to identify suboptimal efforts, the protocol consisted of two experimental conditions: maximal and submaximal.

Table 1
The average peak moment (in Nm) of the wrist extensors by level of effort, contraction type and speed

Contraction type	Speed	Maximal effort mean (SD ${}^{1}$ )	Submaximal effort mean (SD)	Diference mean value (SD)
Concentric	10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	12.96 (2.74)	6.40 (4.1) ${}^{*}$	6.52 (2.09)
	40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	12.84 (3.10)	5.22 (3.67) ${}^{*}$	7.61 (3.12) ${}^{**}$
Eccentric	10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	12.58 (2.72)	6.16 (2.94) ${}^{*}$	6.39 (2.14)
	40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	12.57 (3.09)	6.64 (3.15) ${}^{*}$	5.94 (2.30) ${}^{**}$

${}^{*}P\leqslant$ 0.001 significant difference between maximal and sub-maximal effort. ${}^{**}P=$ 0.004 significant difference between eccentric and concentric contraction at 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s. ${}^{1}$ Standard deviation.

Table 2

The average peak moment (in Nm) of the wrist flexors by level of effort, contraction type and speed

Contraction type	Speed	Maximal effort mean (SD ${}^{1}$ )	Submaximal effort mean (SD)	Difference mean value (SD)
Concentric	10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	18.04 (5.31)	5.59 (3.77) ${}^{*}$	12.44 (4.09)
	40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	18.84 (5.03)	5.12 (3.44) ${}^{*}$	13.71 (4.02)
Eccentric	10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	20.21 (5.50)	6.62 (4.01) ${}^{*}$	13.58 (4.51)
	40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s	21.11 (6.16)	7.15 (4.74) ${}^{*}$	13.96 (5.20)

${}^{*}P\leqslant$ 0.001 significant difference between maximal and sub-maximal effort. ${}^{1}$ Standard deviation.

The test protocol started with a familiarisation and warm-up phase which consisted of one set of five submaximal concentric contractions followed by a two minute rest and one set of five submaximal eccentric contractions. In the concentric phase, the participant was instructed to push and pull the lever arm throughout the RoM. In the eccentric phase, participant was instructed to actively resist the lever arm that was moving in both directions. After a three-minute rest, the actual test started.

In the first part of the experiment (maximal effort) participants were asked to initially exert maximal effort against the lever arm at 10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s. This effort consisted of four pairs of concentric and eccentric contractions, with a 5-s inter-contraction pause and a 25-s inter-pair pause. After a 30-s pause, velocity was raised to 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s and the same protocol was repeated. Three minutes later the second part (submaximal effort) started. During this one, the participant was instructed to apply reduced force during the test, feigning weakness. The participant was told to imagine that one year ago he had an accident and, although he had now fully recovered, he had to try convincing the doctor that he still had weakness, with the purpose of receiving compensation. After these instructions the full protocol was repeated.

2.4 Data analysis

The effort level (maximal vs. submaximal)/contrac- tion mode (concentric vs. eccentric) and velocity (10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s vs. 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s)-specific PM values were derived from the dedicated software and used to calculate the E/CR e.g. the E/CR40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s of the WF was PMeccentric/ PMconcentric at this velocity (40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s).

From these values, the following parameter was calculated for each test condition:

DEC $=$ E/CR40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s $-$ E/CR10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s

The findings were analysed using the statistical software SPSS V13, where statistical significance in all tests was set at $p\leqslant$ 0.05. The statistical tests used were t-student for coupled data and analyses of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measurements with DEC as the dependent variable and effort level as a fixed factor. The DEC tolerance interval for maximal effort was calculated, and the cut-off level was obtained from normal distribution tolerance intervals. Finally, in order to assess DEC efficiency, sensitivity and specificity were determined.

Table 3
The eccentric/concentric ratio (E/CR) and associated difference eccentric to concentric (DEC) values

		Maximal		Submaximal
		E/CR	SD ${}^{1}$	E/CR	SD
Wrist extensors	10 ${}^{\circ}$	1.09	0.56	1.11	0.33
	40 ${}^{\circ}$	0.98	0.14	1.55 ${}^{\ast}$	0.55
DEC (SD)		0.01 (0.136)		0.44 (0.41) ${}^{\ast}$
Wrist flexors	10 ${}^{\circ}$	1.12	0.15	1.25 ${}^{\ast\ast}$	0.29
	40 ${}^{\circ}$	1.11	0.12	1.45 ${}^{\ast\ast}$	0.58
DEC (SD)		0.013 (0.12)		0.20 (0.32) ${}^{\ast\ast}$

${}^{\ast}P\leqslant$ 0.001 significant difference between maximal and sub-maximal effort. ${}^{\ast\ast}P\leqslant$ 0.05 significant difference between maximal and sub-maximal effort. ${}^{1}$ Standard deviation.

Table 4

Mean difference eccentric to concentric (DEC) and standard deviation (SD) in both experimental conditions: maximal (DECm) and submaximal (DECs) effort of wrist extensors and flexors. Calculated tolerance or cut-off levels are depicted relative to the different options of confidence level

Wrist extensors				Wrist flexors
DECm (SD)			DECs (SD)	DECm (SD)		DECs (SD)
0.01 (0.136)			0.44 (0.41)	$-$ 0.013 (0.120)		0.20 (0.32)
		Cut-off			Cut-off
Confidence level(%)	90	$>$ 0.303			$>$ 0.245
	95	$>$ 0.384			$>$ 0.317
	99	$>$ 0.576			$>$ 0.486

Table 5

Sensitivity and specificity of the difference eccentric to concentric (DEC) cut-off at different confidence levels is shown

Confidence level (%)	DEC cut-off	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	DEC cut-off	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
	Wrist extensors			Wrist flexors
90	0.303	74.07	100	0.245	64.5	100
95	0.384	71.43	100	0.317	62.5	100
99	0.576	58.82	100	0.486	57.1	100

3. Results

Tables 1 and 2 outline the mean PM values for WE and WF respectively in the two experimental conditions. In both muscle groups, the mean PMs at maximal performance were significantly higher than those registered for the feigned maximal counterpart ( $P\leqslant$ 0.001).

The differences in PM of the WE between maximal and sub-maximal effort (Table 1) were significantly lower in high velocity eccentric measurements than their concentric counterparts ( $P=$ 0.004). Low velocity differences did not yield significant differences. On the other hand, WF analysis did not indicate significant differences regarding maximal and submaximal PM differences at any instance (Table 2).

Table 3 outlines the mean values (SD) of the E/CR for WE and WF in both velocities and conditions (maximal and submaximal). For all modes and velocities, E/CR values at submaximal condition were higher than those found for the maximal condition. Significant differences regarding E/CR values were demonstrated between maximal and feigned maximal contractions in all cases except for WE at low velocity.

Feigned effort DEC values (Table 3) were significantly higher than their maximal effort counterparts, for both WE ( $P<$ 0.0001) and WF ( $P=$ 0.030). Cut-off values were then calculated using the DEC scores to allow the identification of feigned maximal efforts in case these values were exceeded.

The cut-off score derives from the tolerance intervals for normal distribution of the DEC values. Thus, for a level of confidence (l.o.c.) of 95%, labelling effort as submaximal requires that the DEC exceeds 0.384 and 0.317, for WE and WF, respectively. Obviously, a higher l.o.c. is associated with a higher cut-off score namely, to be confident at 99%, the DEC rises to 0.576 and 0.496, respectively whereas for 90% the cut-off values drop to 0.303 and 0.245, respectively (Table 4).

For each of these cut-off values, Table 5 outlines the corresponding values for sensitivity and specificity. In all maximal effort conditions, the DEC scores were lower than the 99% cut-off value, resulting in a specificity of 100%. Lower cut-off levels (90% and 95%) have not led to a lower DEC specificity in either WF or WE. On the other hand, the sensitivity of the DEC increased as lower confidence levels were selected while being higher submaximal WE effort compared to its WF counterpart.

4. Discussion

This is the first study to assess feigned maximal efforts of WF and WE in healthy adults. The results indicate that DEC can be an efficient tool for detecting submaximal tests.

The main result of this study is that in healthy male volunteers feigned maximal efforts of WF and WE can be efficiently detected using the DEC. Given its associated intricacies this result deserves further elaboration.

This findings become more relevant since injures involving the forearm are very frequent in musculoskeletal rehabilitation and occupational medicine settings. If these injuries involve a muscular component, which eventually leads to weakness, isokinetic dynamometry is the tool of choice for its evaluation. In addition to its high accuracy and reproducibility, the incorporation of different contraction modes and velocities enable a decision regarding patient’s collaboration, a critical condition for the clinical validity of the findings. As shown before, the DEC provides an efficient tool for such objective both in normal subjects [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22] and patients [18, 23, 24], but its values are muscle group-specific. Moreover, for vindication of its application in select patient cohorts, its validity in healthy adults regarding the same muscle group is an essential preliminary step, leading to the current study of hitherto unexplored WF and WE muscle groups.

In the present study, the concentric and eccentric maximal effort PM values in WE: 12.96 Nm and 12.56 Nm (10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s), 12.84 and 12.58 Nm (40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s), respectively, were in the range of the reported strength in healthy men for concentric effort: 11.3 Nm (30 ${}^{\circ}$ /s) but lower than the eccentric component: 17.1 Nm at the same velocity [8]. It is important to note at this point that both eccentric PMs (at 10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s and 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s) were slightly lower than their concentric counterparts. This finding is in variance with the general observation namely that in normal participants the eccentric strength is higher than its concentric counterpart within the same velocity resulting in an E/CR $>$ 1.0 [28]. However, both E/CRs were very close to unity with 1.09 and 0.98 at 10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s and 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s, respectively. Therefore, this slight deviation may be attributed to the relatively low-test velocity [28].

Regarding WF, the maximal effort concentric and eccentric PM mean values (10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 18.04 Nm; 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 18.84 Nm and 10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s 20.21 Nm; 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 21.11 Nm respectively) were lower than the mean PM values reported in the a previous study (concentric values: 30 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 26.1; 90 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 26.7 Nm; and eccentric mean values 60 ${}^{\circ}$ /s: 33.4 Nm) [8]. The gaps noted are due both to the velocity of testing and the use of a different dynamometer. Interestingly, present sample WF tests reveal clearly higher eccentric measurements than concentric ones.

The PM values during the performance of maximal effort were as expected significantly higher than those derived from the sub-maximal condition in all instances and in WF and WE alike. However, this difference was not uniform contraction wise; in WE the mean maximal and sub-maximal PMs at high velocity in eccentric mode were much closer than in concentric mode, an outcome reflecting the more limited central controllability of sub-maximal eccentric contraction control [25, 26, 27]. This finding was not as apparent with respect to WF probably due to a higher voluntary control of these muscles.

Most sub-maximal effort E/CR values in the present study were higher than their maximal effort counterparts. The exception was in low velocity (10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s) wrist extensor E/CR. Thus, for WE at 40 ${}^{\circ}$ /s the high velocity E/CR was significantly greater in the sub-maximal effort while remaining substantially the same at the 10 ${}^{\circ}$ /s test. As highlighted below, these findings provide for a higher power of the DEC in the detection of sub-maximal WE effort, whereas its utility in doing so vis-à-vis WF is slightly lower due to a smaller inter-E/CR difference (see Table 3).

The analysis of the WE and WF DEC (Table 4) showed, as expected, that submaximal effort value were significantly higher than their maximal effort counterparts. The mean DEC value for maximal WE effort (0.01) was well within the DEC value range reported in previous studies performed in other muscle groups ( $-$ 0.007–1.06), whereas WF one ( $-$ 0.013) was slightly lower than the lowest score that was previously registered ( $-$ 0.007 in elbow flexion) [13]. The average DEC values in sub-maximal effort for WE (0.44) was within the range found in previous studies on healthy volunteers, largely between 0.4 and 2.2 [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22]. On the other hand, WF DEC sub-maximal effort average value (0.20) was much lower than previously found. One possible explanation is a more refined voluntary control of both concentric and eccentric contractions in forearm wrist flexor muscles.

Based on the maximal DEC values the cut-off scores for admission/rejection zones were calculated (Table 4). These values may be of high significance in relevant medico-legal cases as well as in general clinical practice where isokinetic tests are utilized. However, high sensitivity and specificity are required in order that they are validly applied. At the same time one must bear in mind the interaction between the latter and the pre-set level of confidence (l.o.c.) namely the higher the l.o.c. the higher the specificity while the lower the l.o.c. the higher is the sensitivity, as amply evident from Table 5 which outlines the different sensitivities and specificities obtained using 90%, 95% and 99% l.o.c. Notably the DEC retained its perfect specificity (100%) even at a l.o.c. of 90% for both muscle groups. In addition, given the substantial stability of the specificity of the DEC and given the wide use of 95% as the standard l.o.c. we recommend its application in testing full compliance in testing WE and WF strength.

In the present study the DEC was efficient in testing sincerity of effort using an isokinetic test performed at a very short wrist ROM (namely 20 ${}^{\circ}$ ). The use of short ROM tests for this objective has been previously advocated [29]. In particular, they may be highly useful for routine clinical practice when a longer ROM cannot be sustained due to, among other things, pain or joint instability.

However attractive the use of the DEC in the medicolegal arena may be, it is essential to keep in mind that the collaboration of a patient during a diagnostic test can be affected by a wide variety of causes such as pain, fear of suffering pain, fear of being injured, anxiety, depression, misunderstanding of the instructions or of the importance of the test and, obviously, interest in obtaining financial benefit [30]. Therefore, it is very important to have a detailed anamnesis, a complete physical exploration (so as to detect the existence of inconsistencies with the clinic) and other complementary tests that might show the presence of injuries, which could explain any deficiencies, before assessing the patient’s collaboration. It is also of essence to note that the current values provide a baseline only to which future studies of muscular strength in patients with wrist dysfunction should refer. As more recently indicated [23] the DEC values of the uninvolved side of patients impaired with rotatory dysfunction of the shoulder furnished a more valid reference than those derived from normal subjects.

We conclude that the DEC may be a valuable parameter for detecting feigned maximal effort in wrist flexion-extension isokinetic tests in healthy subjects. Further research should focus on patients with injuries involving the wrist, both in medico-legal situations and in routine clinical practice.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Joaquim Chaler and Eduard Pujol.

PERFORMANCE OF WORK: Mercè Torra and Eduard Pujol.

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Joaquim Chaler, Anna Maiques, Salvador Quintana and Eduard Pujol.

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Mercè Torra and Joaquim Chaler.

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: Roser Garreta and Joaquim Chaler.

SUPERVISION: Roser Garreta.

Ethical considerations

The Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa Ethics Committee approved this study on 10/01/2010. All participants gave written informed consent before data collection began.

Funding

The authors report no funding.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Carme Unyó for her help in designing the strength assessment protocol. Authors also want to thank Mireia Cano the review of the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Given his role as an Editorial Board Member, Joaquim Chaler had no involvement nor access to information regarding the peer review of this article.

References

Waehrer

Leigh

Miller

. Costs of occupational injury and illness within the health services sector. Int J Health Serv [Internet]. 2005 Jan [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 35(2): 343–59.

Alizadehkhaiyat

Fisher

Kemp

Frostick

. Strength and fatigability of selected muscles in upper limb: assessing muscle imbalance relevant to tennis elbow. J Electromyogr Kinesiol [Internet]. 2007 Aug [cited 2015 Apr 29]; 17(4): 428–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.04.007.

Unyó

Chaler

Rojas-Martínez

Pujol

Müller

Garreta

, et al. A cross-sectional study comparing strength profile of dorsal and palmar flexor muscles of the wrist in epicondylitis and healthy men. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013; 49(4).

Bisset

Vicenzino

. Physiotherapy management of lateral epicondylalgia. J Physiother [Internet]. 2015; 61(4): 174–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2015.07.015.

Croisier

J-L

Foidart-Dessalle

Tinant

Crielaard

J-M

Forthomme

. An isokinetic eccentric programme for the management of chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2007 Apr; 41(4): 269–75.

Cullinane

Boocock

Trevelyan

. Is eccentric exercise an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis? A systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2014 Jan; 28(1): 3–19.

Malliaras

Maffulli

Garau

. Eccentric training programmes in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy. Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30(20–22): 1590–6.

Forthomme

Croisier

Foidart-Dessalle

Crielaard

. Isokinetic assessment of the forearm and wrist muscles [Internet]. Vol. 10, Isokinetics and Exercise Science. IOS Press; 2002 [cited 2015 Jul 6].

Reichard

Katz-Leurer

Rubinstein

Croisier

J-L

Dvir

. Short range of motion isokinetic testing of wrist flexor and extensor strength in normal subjects and patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Strength Cond Res [Internet]. 2010 Jul [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 24(7): 1866–73. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181def440.

10.

Seven

Cobanoglu

Oskay

Atalay-Guzel

. Test-Retest Reliability of Isokinetic Wrist Strength and Proprioception Measurements. J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Jun; 1–6.

11.

Chaler

Dvir

Díaz

Quintana

Abril

Unyó

, et al. Identification of feigned maximal shoulder external rotation effort. Clin Rehabil [Internet]. 2007 Mar [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 21(3): 241–7. doi: 10.1177/0269215506070777.

12.

Dvir

. Identification of feigned grip effort using isokinetic dynamometry. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) [Internet]. 1999 Oct [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 14(8): 522–7.

13.

Dvir

. An isokinetic study of submaximal effort in elbow flexion. Percept Mot Skills. 1997 Jun; 84(3 Pt 2): 1431–8.

14.

Dvir

. Differentiation of submaximal from maximal trunk extension effort: an isokinetic study using a new testing protocol. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 1997 Nov 15 [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 22(22): 2672–6.

15.

Dvir

Steinfeld-Cohen

Peretz

. Identification of feigned shoulder flexion weakness in normal subjects. Am J Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2002 Mar [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 81(3): 187–93.

16.

Dvir

David

. Suboptimal muscular performance: measuring isokinetic strength of knee extensors with new testing protocol. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 1996 Jun [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 77(6): 578–81.

17.

Dvir

Keating

. Identifying feigned isokinetic trunk extension effort in normal subjects: an efficiency study of the DEC. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 May; 26(9): 1046–51.

18.

Dvir

Keating

. Trunk extension effort in patients with chronic low back dysfunction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Apr; 28(7): 685–92.

19.

Lin

Robinson

Carlos

O’Connor

. Detection of submaximal effort in isometric and isokinetic knee extension tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996 Jul; 24(1): 19–24.

20.

Luoto

Hupli

Alaranta

Hurri

. Isokinetic performance capacity of trunk muscles. Part II: Coefficient of variation in isokinetic measurement in maximal effort and in submaximal effort. Scand J Rehabil Med [Internet]. 1996 Dec [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 28(4): 207–10.

21.

Olmo

Jato

Benito

Martín

Dvir

. Identification of feigned ankle plantar and dorsiflexors weakness in normal subjects. J Electromyogr Kinesiol [Internet]. 2009 Oct [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 19(5): 774–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.02.001.

22.

Pujol

Chaler

Sucarrats

López

Zeballos

Garreta

, et al. Standard and short rom isokinetic testing: comparative analysis in identifying submaximal shoulder external rotator effort. J Mot Behav. 2017; 49(6).

23.

Chaler

Pujol

Unyó

Quintana

Müller

Garreta

, et al. Maximality of shoulder external rotation effort in patients presenting with work related injury: the clinical applicability of the DEC parameter. J Electromyogr Kinesiol [Internet]. 2013 Aug [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 23(4): 865–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.03.003.

24.

Dvir

. Clinical application of the DEC variables in assessing maximality of muscular effort: report of 34 patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2002 Dec [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 81(12): 921–8. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000034955.03796.E2.

25.

Enoka

. Eccentric contractions require unique activation strategies by the nervous system. J Appl Physiol [Internet]. 1996 Dec [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 81(6): 2339–46.

26.

Fang

Siemionow

Sahgal

Xiong

Yue

. Distinct brain activation patterns for human maximal voluntary eccentric and concentric muscle actions. Brain Res [Internet]. 2004 Oct 15 [cited 2015 Jul 6]; 1023(2): 200–12. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.07.035.

27.

Duchateau

Baudry

. Insights into the neural control of eccentric contractions. J Appl Physiol [Internet]. 2013/02/21. 2014 Jun 1; 116(11): 1418–25. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00002.2013.

28.

Isokinetics, 2nd Edition

|

Zeevi Dvir

|

ISBN 9780443071997 [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2015 Jul 6].

29.

Dvir, Zeevi (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv I). Isokinetic measurements using short range of motion: a new approach to the assessment of muscle function. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2003; 11: 9–12.

30.

Lechner

Bradbury

Bradley

. Detecting sincerity of effort: a summary of methods and approaches. Phys Ther. 1998 Aug; 78(8): 867–88.

Detection of effort maximality in adults performing isokinetic wrist flexion and extension

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION:

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Method

2.1 Design

2.2 Participants

2.3 Outcome measures

Table 1 The average peak moment (in Nm) of the wrist extensors by level of effort, contraction type and speed

Table 3 The eccentric/concentric ratio (E/CR) and associated difference eccentric to concentric (DEC) values

4. Discussion

Author contributions

Ethical considerations

Funding

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Table 1
The average peak moment (in Nm) of the wrist extensors by level of effort, contraction type and speed

Table 3
The eccentric/concentric ratio (E/CR) and associated difference eccentric to concentric (DEC) values