title: Manual muscle testing: does it meet the standards of an adequate screening test?
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, School of Allied Health, University of Connecticut, U-2101, Storrs, CT 06269-2101, USA. richard.bohannon@uconn.edu
authors.forename: Richard W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Bohannon
mesh_terms: 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