Manual muscle testing: does it meet the standards of an adequate screening test?
OBJECTIVE
To describe the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of manual muscle testing.


METHODS
Secondary analysis of cross-sectional strength data.


METHODS
Acute rehabilitation unit.


METHODS
Convenience sample of 107 consecutive qualifying rehabilitation inpatients.


METHODS
Not applicable.


METHODS
Knee extension forces measured by manual muscle testing and hand-held dynamometry.


RESULTS
The ability of manual muscle testing to detect 15, 20, 25 and 30% between-side differences and deficits in knee extension force was described. Although the specificity of manual muscle testing was acceptable (mostly > 80%), its sensitivity to differences between sides and to deficits relative to normal never exceeded 75%. Its diagnostic accuracy was never greater than 78%.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study cast doubt on the suitability of manual muscle testing as a screening test for strength impairments.
Bohannon
Richard W
RW
Department of Physical Therapy, School of Allied Health, University of Connecticut, U-2101, Storrs, CT 06269-2101, USA. richard.bohannon@uconn.edu
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007717:Knee / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000503:physiopathology*; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity