| Literature DB >> 32153987 |
Alessandro Schneebeli1,2, Deborah Falla2, Ron Clijsen1,3, Marco Barbero1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the MyotonPRO and its construct validity for the assessment of Achilles tendon stiffness.Entities:
Keywords: achilles; ankle; tendon
Year: 2020 PMID: 32153987 PMCID: PMC7047478 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000726
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med ISSN: 2055-7647
Figure 1Schematic of the experimental setup. (A) Isometric contractions: the foot was securely attached to a dynamometer with a wooden board at a fixed angle of 0° of dorsiflexion. The force measured by the load cell was proportional to the torque exerted at the ankle level. (B) Standing position: participants were asked to stand on a Wii balance board (Nintendo, Kyoto, Japan) with the centre of mass centred on the centre of board with the feet equally spaced. (C) Relaxed position: the feet were hanging freely over the edge of the examination bed. MyotonPRO was applied to the most central point of the tendon at the level of the medial malleolus.
Descriptive statistics
| N | Sample (mean±SD) | Stiffness N/m (median IQR) | |||||||||
| Age (year) | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | 0 kg | 0.5 kg | 1 kg | 2 kg | 3 kg | Relax | Standing | ||
| Total | 40 | 33.8 | 172.2 | 71.7 | 1043.0 | 1096.5 | 1110.5 | 1180.5 | 1381.5 | 771.0 | 1596.0 |
| 14.2 | 8.2 | 12.0 | 132.3 | 62.0 | 121.3 | 255.5 | 214.3 | 105.3 | 339.3 | ||
| Men | 22 | 35.6 | 177.7 | 77.4 | 1057.5 | 1089.5 | 1086.5 | 1117.5 | 1333.0 | 792.0 | 1577.5 |
| 13.8 | 5.6 | 10.6 | 144.0 | 65.0 | 132.3 | 143.3 | 198.3 | 124.0 | 337.3 | ||
| Women | 18 | 32.4 | 167.6 | 67.0 | 1041.0 | 1099.5 | 1129.5 | 1284.0 | 1435.5 | 753.0 | 1616.5 |
| 15.1 | 6.9 | 11.0 | 139.0 | 89.5 | 129.8 | 279.8 | 201.3 | 83.3 | 363.5 | ||
Sample characteristics and stiffness values.
Absolute and relative reliability for the different conditions
| Intra-rater | Inter-rater | Inter-session | |||||||
| ICC (95% CI) | SEM | MDC | ICC (95% CI) | SEM | MDC | ICC (95% CI) | SEM | MDC | |
| 0 kg | 0.95 (0.92 to 0.97) | 19.3 | 53.5 | 0.76 (0.62 to 0.84) | 43.2 | 119.6 | 0.88 (0.82 to 0.93) | 30.5 | 84.6 |
| 0.5 kg | 0.59 (0.36 to 0.74) | 40 | 111 | 0.55 (0.30 to 0.72) | 50.2 | 139.1 | 0.54 (0.29 to 0.71) | 49.8 | 137.9 |
| 1 kg | 0.87 (0.80 to 0.92) | 36 | 99.8 | 0.54 (0.28 to 0.71) | 66.2 | 183.5 | 0.70 (0.54 to 0.81) | 56.1 | 155.6 |
| 2 kg | 0.95 (0.91 to 0.97) | 39.3 | 109 | 0.79 (0.67 to 0.87) | 83.3 | 231 | 0.86 (0.78 to 0.91) | 65.8 | 182.5 |
| 3 kg | 0.94 (0.91 to 0.96) | 47.7 | 132.1 | 0.81 (0.69 to 0.88) | 85.9 | 238.2 | 0.78 (0.66 to 0.86) | 92.7 | 256.9 |
| Relax | 0.98 (0.97 to 0.99) | 10.8 | 30 | 0.86 (0.78 to 0.91) | 30.5 | 84.6 | 0.89 (0.83 to 0.93) | 24.7 | 68.4 |
| Standing | 0.87 (0.89 to 0.92) | 70.7 | 196.1 | 0.56 (0.29 to 0.73) | 130.1 | 360.5 | 0.75 (0.60 to 0.84) | 101.5 | 281.3 |
CI, confidence interval; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; MDC, minimal detectable change; SEM, standard error of measurement.
Figure 2Construct validity. Box plot showing the stiffness median and IQR values of the entire sample for the different contraction levels (A) and for the different positions (B). *p<0.01; statistical significant difference between the different conditions.