BACKGROUND: Muscle strength is an important component of health. OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate the studies which have established the reference values for muscle strength on healthy individuals and to synthesize these values with a descriptive meta-analysis approach. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE, LILACS, and SciELO databases. Studies that investigated the reference values for muscle strength of two or more appendicular/axial muscle groups of health individuals were included. Methodological quality, including risk of bias was assessed by the QUADAS-2. Data extracted included: country of the study, sample size, population characteristics, equipment/method used, and muscle groups evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 414 studies identified, 46 were included. Most of the studies had adequate methodological quality. Included studies evaluated: appendicular (80.4%) and axial (36.9%) muscles; adults (78.3%), elderly (58.7%), adolescents (43.5%), children (23.9%); isometric (91.3%) and isokinetic (17.4%) strength. Six studies (13%) with similar procedures were synthesized with meta-analysis. Generally, the coefficient of variation values that resulted from the meta-analysis ranged from 20.1% to 30% and were similar to those reported by the original studies. The meta-analysis synthesized the reference values of isometric strength of 14 muscle groups of the dominant/non-dominant sides of the upper/lower limbs of adults/elderly from developed countries, using dynamometers/myometer. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies had adequate methodological quality. The meta-analysis provided reference values for the isometric strength of 14 appendicular muscle groups of the dominant/non-dominant sides, measured with dynamometers/myometers, of men/women, of adults/elderly. These data may be used to interpret the results of the evaluations and establish appropriate treatment goals.
BACKGROUND: Muscle strength is an important component of health. OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate the studies which have established the reference values for muscle strength on healthy individuals and to synthesize these values with a descriptive meta-analysis approach. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE, LILACS, and SciELO databases. Studies that investigated the reference values for muscle strength of two or more appendicular/axial muscle groups of health individuals were included. Methodological quality, including risk of bias was assessed by the QUADAS-2. Data extracted included: country of the study, sample size, population characteristics, equipment/method used, and muscle groups evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 414 studies identified, 46 were included. Most of the studies had adequate methodological quality. Included studies evaluated: appendicular (80.4%) and axial (36.9%) muscles; adults (78.3%), elderly (58.7%), adolescents (43.5%), children (23.9%); isometric (91.3%) and isokinetic (17.4%) strength. Six studies (13%) with similar procedures were synthesized with meta-analysis. Generally, the coefficient of variation values that resulted from the meta-analysis ranged from 20.1% to 30% and were similar to those reported by the original studies. The meta-analysis synthesized the reference values of isometric strength of 14 muscle groups of the dominant/non-dominant sides of the upper/lower limbs of adults/elderly from developed countries, using dynamometers/myometer. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies had adequate methodological quality. The meta-analysis provided reference values for the isometric strength of 14 appendicular muscle groups of the dominant/non-dominant sides, measured with dynamometers/myometers, of men/women, of adults/elderly. These data may be used to interpret the results of the evaluations and establish appropriate treatment goals.
Authors: Niko P Paalanne; Raija Korpelainen; Simo P Taimela; Jouko Remes; Matti Salakka; Jaro I Karppinen Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Isabela M B Sclauser Pessoa; Verônica Franco Parreira; Guilherme A F Fregonezi; A William Sheel; Frank Chung; W Darlene Reid Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: H M Molenaar; Ruud W Selles; Sten P Willemsen; Steven E R Hovius; Henk J Stam Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Julie A Pasco; Amanda L Stuart; Kara L Holloway-Kew; Monica C Tembo; Sophia X Sui; Kara B Anderson; Natalie K Hyde; Lana J Williams; Mark A Kotowicz Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 2.362