The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hand‐held Dynamometry Correlation With the Gold Standard Isokinetic Dynamometry: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Objective: To examine the current evidence regarding the reliability and validity of hand‐held dynamometry for assessment of muscle strength in the clinical setting. Data Sources: A search was conducted of the following databases: Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed, PEDro, OTseeker, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), and MANTIS, from inception until January 29, 2010. Study Selection: The MeSH subject heading “muscle strength dynamometer” was searched, in isolation and in combination with the text word phrases “hand‐held dynamometer” and “isokinetic.” Four hundred fifty‐four different studies met this search and were reviewed for possible inclusion. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of the included manuscripts. The PEDro data collection system was used in conjunction with the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Description. A third reviewer was used when there was disagreement between the primary reviewers. Data Synthesis: Seventeen manuscripts met the inclusion criteria for this review, with a total of 19 studies (2 of the manuscripts involved 2 separate studies) that compared hand‐held dynamometry with an identified reference standard (isokinetic muscle strength testing). The results demonstrated minimal differences between hand‐held dynamometry and isokinetic testing. Conclusions: Considering hand‐held dynamometry's ease of use, portability, cost, and compact size, compared with isokinetic devices this instrument can be regarded as a reliable and valid instrument for muscle strength assessment in a clinical setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808
Bero, L., Oostvogel, F., Bacchetti, P., & Lee, K. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184 · Cited by 249
Cited by
Mijnarends, D. M., Meijers, J. M. M., Halfens, R. J. G., ter Borg, S., Luiking, Y. C., Verlaan, S., Schoberer, D., Cruz Jentoft, A. J., van Loon, L. J. C., & Schols, J. M. G. A. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.10.009 · Cited by 475
Measuring Muscle Mass and Strength in Obesity: a Review of Various Methods
Sizoo, D., de Heide, L. J. M., Emous, M., van Zutphen, T., Navis, G., & van Beek, A. P. (2021) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-020-05082-2 · Cited by 77
Zibellini, J., Seimon, R. V., Lee, C. M. Y., Gibson, A. A., Hsu, M. S. H., & Sainsbury, A. (2016) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12422 · Cited by 54
Johnston, R., Doma, K., & Crowe, M. (2018) · Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging · doi:10.1111/cpf.12443 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Stark, T., Walker, B., Phillips, J. K., Fejer, R., & Beck, R.
- Venue
- PM&R
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 472-479
- ISSN
- 1934-1482 (ISSN-L)
- 1934-1563
- OpenAlex
- W2049534464
- Cited by
- 816
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hand‐held Dynamometry Correlation With the Gold Standard Isokinetic Dynamometry: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.10.025
- The paper
- Stark, T., Walker, B., Phillips, J. K., Fejer, R., & Beck, R. (2011). Hand‐held Dynamometry Correlation With the Gold Standard Isokinetic Dynamometry: A Systematic Review. PM&R. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.10.025
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.