Testing the Posterior Chain: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Bunkie Test versus the Isokinetic Hamstrings/Quadriceps Measurement in Patients with Self-Reported Knee Pain and Healthy Controls

Author:

Gabriel Anna1ORCID,Konrad Andreas2ORCID,Herold Nadine3,Horstmann Thomas1,Schleip Robert14ORCID,Paternoster Florian K.5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Conservative and Rehabilitative Orthopedics, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany

2. Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, 8010 Graz, Austria

3. Department Sport and Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany

4. Department of Medical Professions, Diploma University of Applied Sciences, 37242 Bad Sooden-Allendorf, Germany

5. Department of Biomechanics in Sports, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany

Abstract

(1) Background: The isokinetic measurement (IM) of the leg muscles is well established but costly, whereas the Bunkie Test (BT) is a rarely investigated but easy-to-conduct functional test to evaluate the total posterior chain. Although the tests differ in aim and test structures, both have their justification in the assessment process. Therefore, this study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the BT and the IM. (2) Methods: 21 participants (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.2 ± 5.26 years; weight 73.8 ± 14.6 kg; height 176.0 ± 9.91 cm) and 21 patients (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.5 ± 5.56 years; weight, 72.6 ± 16.9 kg; height 177.0 ± 10.1 cm) with self-reported pain in the knee performed the IM and the BT. For IM, we calculated the ratio of the knee mean flexor/extensor peak torque (H/Q ratio) for 60°/s and 120°/s, and BT performance was measured in seconds. We classified the IM (<0.6 H/Q ratio) and the BT (leg difference ≥4 s) as binary results according to the literature. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity, which we compared with the Chi-Square test, and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). A p-value of ≤0.05 is considered significant. (3) Results: The sensitivity for the BT was 0.89, 95% CI [0.67, 0.99], and the specificity was 0.52 [0.30, 0.74]. For the IM, the sensitivity was 0.14 [0.03, 0.36] for 60°/s and 0.05 [0.00, 0.24] for 120°/s, and the specificity was 0.70 [0.46, 0.88] for 60°/s and 0.90 [0.68, 0.99] for 120°/s. The results of the Chi-Square tests were significant for the BT (χ2 (1) = 6.17, p = 0.01) but not for the IM (60°/s: χ2 (1) = 0.70, p = 0.40; 120°/s: χ2 (1) = 0.00, p = 0.97). (4) Conclusions: Patients were more likely to obtain a positive test result for the BT but not for the IM.

Funder

Austrian Science Fund

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference60 articles.

1. The Bunkie test: Descriptive data for a novel test of core muscular endurance;Brumitt;Rehabil. Res. Pract.,2015

2. Functional performance testing for power and return to sports;Manske;Sports Health,2013

3. The relationship between the bunkie-test and physical performance in rugby union players;Venter;Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach.,2012

4. Functional performance testing of the hip in athletes: A systematic review for reliability and validity;Kivlan;Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther.,2012

5. Strength and speed characteristics of elite, subelite, and recreational young soccer players;Gissis;Res. Sports Med.,2006

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3