Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Limb Muscle Strength in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review

Vanpee, Goele, Hermans, Greet, Segers, Johan, Gosselink, Rik·2014·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of volitional and nonvolitional limb muscle strength assessment in critically ill patients and to provide guidelines for the implementation of limb muscle strength assessment this population. DATA SOURCES: The following computerized bibliographic databases were searched with MeSH terms and keywords or combinations: MEDLINE through PubMed and Embase through Embase.com. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were all performed in humans and were original articles. The research population exists of adult, critically ill patients or ICU survivors of either sex, and those admitted to a medical, surgical, respiratory, or mixed ICU. A study was included if reliability of muscle strength measurements was determined in this population. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on baseline characteristics (country, study population, eligibility, age, setting and method, and equipment of limb muscle strength assessment) and reliability scores were obtained by two independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data of six observational studies were analyzed. Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council scale for individual muscle groups varied from "fair" or "substantial" (weighted κ, 0.23-0.64) to "very good" agreement (weighted κ, 0.80-0.96). Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council-sum score was found to be very good in all four studies (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.86-0.99 or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient = 0.96). Interrater reliability of handheld dynamometry was comparable between two studies (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.62-0.96). Interrater reliability of handgrip dynamometry was very good in two studies (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.89-0.97). Intrarater reliability of handheld dynamometry and handgrip dynamometry was assessed in one study, and results were very good (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.81). No studies were obtained on reliability of nonvolitional muscle strength assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Voluntary muscle strength measurement has proven reliable in critically ill patients provided that strict guidelines on adequacy and standardized test procedures and positions are followed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000000030

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Vanpee, G., Hermans, G., Segers, J., & Gosselink, R.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2014-03
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
701-711
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057831147
Cited by
174
References
3
FWCI
6.80
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: Assessment of Limb Muscle Strength in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000030
The paper
Vanpee, G., Hermans, G., Segers, J., & Gosselink, R. (2014). Assessment of Limb Muscle Strength in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000030

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.