Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and validity of the original and a modified Medical Research Council scale for testing muscle strength in radial palsy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized validation study. PATIENTS: Thirty-one patients with peripheral paresis of radial innervated forearm muscles were included. METHODS: Wrist extension, finger extension and grip strength were evaluated by manual muscle testing. Dynamometric measurement of grip strength was performed. Pair-wise weighted kappa coefficients were calculated to determine inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. The 2 scores were compared using the signed-rank test. Spearman's correlation coefficients of the maximal relative force measurements with the median (over-raters) Medical Research Council and modified Medical Research Council scores were calculated to determine validity. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement of the Medical Research Council scale (finger extension: 0.77; wrist extension: 0.78; grip strength: 0.78) and the modified Medical Research Council scale (finger extension: 0.81; wrist extension: 0.78; grip strength: 0.81) as well as intra-rater agreement of the Medical Research Council scale (finger extension: 0.86; wrist extension: 0.82; grip strength: 0.84) and the modified Medical Research Council scale (finger extension: 0.84, wrist extension: 0.81; grip strength: 0.88) showed almost perfect agreement. Spearman's correlation coefficients of the maximal relative force measurements with the median Medical Research Council and modified Medical Research Council score were both 0.78. CONCLUSION: Medical Research Council and modified Medical Research Council scales are measurements with substantial inter-rater and intra-rater reliability in evaluating forearm muscles.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The CMAP amplitudes elicited by the TIME corresponding to the maximum SI were of a functional magnitude.
“The CMAP amplitudes elicited by the TIME corresponding to the maximum SI were of a functional magnitude (Paternostro-Sluga et al 2008).”
From Comparative analysis of transverse intrafascicular multichannel, longitudinal intrafascicular and multipolar cuff electrodes for the selective stimulation of nerve fascicles (2011) · cites this paper as Paternostro-Sluga et al 2008
The available study text describes manual muscle-strength testing and grip-force measurements in patients with radial palsy; it does not address CMAP amplitudes elicited at the TIME corresponding to maximum SI. Searches for the quoted phrase and for compound muscle action potentials and stimulation intensity found no relevant passage. The indexed passages provide no section or page number for this point. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Donati, A. R. C., Shokur, S., Morya, E., Campos, D. S. F., Moioli, R. C., Gitti, C. M., Augusto, P. B., Tripodi, S., Pires, C. G., Pereira, G. A., et al. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep30383 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Chen, P., Lin, K.-C., Liing, R.-J., Wu, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L., & Chang, K.-C. (2016) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Badia, J., Boretius, T., Andreu, D., Azevedo-Coste, C., Stieglitz, T., & Navarro, X. (2011) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036023 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Gruther, W., Pieber, K., Steiner, I., Hein, C., Hiesmayr, J. M., & Paternostro-Sluga, T. (2017) · American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000000718 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Paternostro-Sluga, T., Grim-Stieger, M., Posch, M., Schuhfried, O., Vacariu, G., Mittermaier, C., Bittner, C., & Fialka-Moser, V
- Venue
- Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
- Publisher
- Medical Journals Sweden AB
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 665-671
- ISSN
- 1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059694151
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 6.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Peripheral Nerve Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- Medical Research Council scale, muscle strength assessment, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, validity, grip strength, wrist extension, finger extension, forearm muscles, dynamometry
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Hand Strength, Muscle Weakness, Radial Neuropathy, Muscle Strength
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
