On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review.
On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1746-1340-15-4
复制
发表时间：
2007-03-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Goodheart, George J Jr
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cuthbert, Scott C;Goodheart, George J Jr
引言：自1915年第一次同行评议出版以来，已经在手动肌肉测试（MMT）上产生了一系列基础科学和临床研究。本报告的目的是提供一个历史的概述，文献综述，描述，合成和批评MMT的可靠性和有效性的评估肌肉骨骼和神经systems.METHODS：网上资源进行了搜索，包括Pubmed和CINAHL（每个从成立到2006年6月）。使用检索词手动肌肉测试或手动肌肉测试。选择相关的同行评议研究、评论和综述。两位评审员独立评估数据质量，选择标准基于预定义的方法学标准。MMT的研究按研究内容类型分类：检查者间和检查者内信度研究，结构效度、内容效度、同时效度和预测效度研究。每项研究进行了审查，在其质量和贡献的知识，关于MMT，其调查结果presented.Results：超过100项研究相关的MMT和应用运动学整脊技术（AK），采用MMT在其方法进行了审查，包括MMT在诊断患者的临床疗效的研究。关于分析，有证据表明MMT用于神经肌肉骨骼功能障碍患者具有良好的信度和效度。观察性队列研究显示了良好的外部效度和内部效度，12项随机对照试验（RCT）的结果表明MMT的结果不依赖于检查者的偏倚。脊医、理疗师和神经科医生使用的MMT被证明是一种临床有用的工具，但其最终的科学验证和应用需要在神经生理学、生物力学、随机对照试验和统计分析领域采用复杂的研究模型进行测试。
INTRODUCTION: A body of basic science and clinical research has been generated on the manual muscle test (MMT) since its first peer-reviewed publication in 1915. The aim of this report is to provide an historical overview, literature review, description, synthesis and critique of the reliability and validity of MMT in the evaluation of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.METHODS: Online resources were searched including Pubmed and CINAHL (each from inception to June 2006). The search terms manual muscle testing or manual muscle test were used. Relevant peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and reviews were selected. The two reviewers assessed data quality independently, with selection standards based on predefined methodologic criteria. Studies of MMT were categorized by research content type: inter- and intraexaminer reliability studies, and construct, content, concurrent and predictive validity studies. Each study was reviewed in terms of its quality and contribution to knowledge regarding MMT, and its findings presented.RESULTS: More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed, including studies on the clinical efficacy of MMT in the diagnosis of patients with symptomatology. With regard to analysis there is evidence for good reliability and validity in the use of MMT for patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction. The observational cohort studies demonstrated good external and internal validity, and the 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were reviewed show that MMT findings were not dependent upon examiner bias.CONCLUSION: The MMT employed by chiropractors, physical therapists, and neurologists was shown to be a clinically useful tool, but its ultimate scientific validation and application requires testing that employs sophisticated research models in the areas of neurophysiology, biomechanics, RCTs, and statistical analysis.