Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40999019›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Normalized data may have limitations in determining the reliability of MVC measurements.

Christoph Anders, Christin Alex, Max Herzberg, Lena Mader

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christoph AndersDivision of Motor Research, Pathophysiology and Biomechanics; Experimental Trauma Surgery, Department for Hand, Reconstructive, and Trauma Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany. Christoph.anders@med.uni-jena.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5580-5338
Christin AlexDivision of Motor Research, Pathophysiology and Biomechanics; Experimental Trauma Surgery, Department for Hand, Reconstructive, and Trauma Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Max HerzbergDivision of Motor Research, Pathophysiology and Biomechanics; Experimental Trauma Surgery, Department for Hand, Reconstructive, and Trauma Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Lena MaderDivision of Motor Research, Pathophysiology and Biomechanics; Experimental Trauma Surgery, Department for Hand, Reconstructive, and Trauma Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement data serve as an objective basis for scientific findings. Therefore, their reliability in repeated measurements is a crucial prerequisite. The repeatability of measurements is quantified using various reliability parameters. Often, data are subjected to normalization procedures to reduce inter-individual variability or to improve interpretability. In our study, we aimed to investigate the extent to which the application of normalization has impact on the determined reliability parameters. This was examined using the example of maximum force values for trunk extension and flexion. For this purpose, 85 healthy individuals (42 women) were subjected to maximum isometric force tests of the trunk muscles at two-weeks intervals. The calculated reliability and agreement parameters included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEm), the standard error of the mean (SEM), and the coefficient of variation of the method error (CVME). The ICC values consistently indicated good reliability for the original data (Extension: 0.889, Flexion: 0.882). Within the subpopulations of women and men, lower but still good ICC levels were observed (Women Extension: 0.671, Flexion: 0.826; Men Extension: 0.819, Flexion: 0.680). For the anthropometrically normalized force values, lower ICC levels were found for the entire group (Extension: 0.803, Flexion: 0.768) although the deviations in the subpopulations were different (Women Extension: 0.747, Flexion: 0.805; Men Extension: 0.852, Flexion: 0.642). Thus, normalization of measured values leads to varying deviations of calculated ICC levels compared to the original data, which is why the use of standardized data is not recommended for reliability calculations.

Indexed as

Isometric ContractionMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthAdultFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultData normalizationMaximum voluntary contractionTrunk extensionTrunk flexion

Identifiers

PMID40999019
PMCPMC12464283

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.