Table 7. Levels of evidencea of lower limb strength measurements based on Brink and Louwb methodological quality.
Neurological test or method | Diagnosis | Measurement property | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-rater reliability | Inter-rater reliability | Validity | Responsiveness | ||
ASIA Impairment Scale | SCI | ± Conflicting [57] | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence |
CMTPedS | CMT | No evidence | ++ Moderate [45] | No evidence | No evidence |
HHD | CP | ± Conflictingc [46, 47, 51, 52, 54] | ± Conflicting [53] | No evidence | No evidence |
SB | + Limited [48] | ++ Moderate [49] | No evidence | No evidence | |
DMD | ++ Moderate [50] | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | |
MMT | SB | No evidence | ± Conflicting [49] | No evidence | No evidence |
DMD | ± Conflicting [55,56] | ? Unknown [55] | No evidence | No evidence | |
RQMS | CP | No evidence | ? Unknown [55] | No evidence | No evidence |
SHR | CP | ++ Moderate [52] | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence |
CMTPedS, Charcot- Marie- Tooth Paediatric Scale; HHD, Hand held dynamometer; MMT, Manual muscle test; RQMS, Richmond Quantitative Measurement System; SHR, Standing heel rise; +++ or— = strong evidence with consistent findings from two or more good quality papers or one paper of excellent quality; ++ or— = moderate evidence with consistent findings from two or more fair quality papers or one paper of good quality; + or— = limited evidence with consistent findings from one paper of fair quality, ± = conflicting evidence with inconsistent findings from one or more papers of fair quality,? = unknown evidence with findings only from papers of poor quality, 0 = no evidence.
bMethodological quality based on Brink and Louw et al.’s [6] critical appraisal tool using an arbitrary grades based on the percentage of “yes” responses for applicable items. Arbitrary grades: <40% = Poor, 40%-59% = Fair, 60% - 79% = Good, >80% = Excellent.