ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing quadriceps strength in patellofemoral pain patients: A study on the reliability and validity of a low-cost strain-gauge for clinical practice.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quadriceps Strength and Movement Patterns in Patients After ACLR Who Pass a Clinic-Based Return-to-Sport Testing Battery.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of two portable metabolic systems for measuring energy expenditure at rest and during exercise in untrained women.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatellofemoral pain (PFP) is a common knee complaint affecting diverse populations both acutely and chronically. Quadriceps muscle weakness is one possible aetiology, but current devices for measuring muscle strength (isokinetic dynamometer [ID] and hand-held dynamometers [HHD]) are frequently too expensive (e.g., ID) or lack reliability (e.g., HHD) for practitioners, especially in under-resourced settings. There is a need to evaluate a low-cost device to manage rehabilitation of people with PFP.
methodsIsometric quadriceps strength of participants aged 18-35 years (total [n = 33], control group [n = 17] and PFP group [n = 16]) were evaluated on an isokinetic dynamometer and a commercially available strain gauge at baseline and after an 8-week non-standardised intervention.
resultsThe strain gauge showed high absolute and relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89-0.99; typical error of measurement = 3.9-10.4%). Clinically meaningful difference scores (12.2-45 Nm) were greater than the typical error of measurement, implying sufficient sensitivity of the strain gauge to measure true changes in isometric quadricep strength. Strong to very strong correlations were evident between the strain gauge and isokinetic dynamometer torque measurements (r = 0.88-0.90, SEE = 0.05-0.07 Nm), but slope values (β = 0.65-0.77) indicated that torque from the strain gauge was lower than that obtained from the isokinetic dynamometer. An average systematic bias of 16.3-28.8 Nm was evident in favour of the isokinetic dynamometer, with no statistically significant between-group differences apparent between baseline and follow-up testing.
conclusionThe present commercially available strain gauge is reliable and sensitive enough to detect clinically meaningful differences in quadriceps strength of both healthy individuals and those with PFP. However, the strain gauge lacks validity and therefore cannot replace isokinetic dynamometry. Given the low cost and excellent reliability, the strain gauge can be a valuable tool to assess quadriceps muscle deficits and track rehabilitation progress in people with PFP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.