Context: Physical performance tests (PPTs) and mobility tests have been widely used in sports rehabilitation. However, the feasibility of PPTs and mobility tests via telehealth is unknown. Objectives: To verify the feasibility of PPTs and mobility tests to assess athletes via telehealth. Design: This is a feasibility study. Participants: Athletes enrolled in a sports team or club for at least 2 years and with previous enrollment in a competitive league were recruited through advertisements on social media. The athletes included in this study (mean age = 25.9 y, from different sports) performed a battery of PPTs and mobility tests for the lower-extremity or upper-extremity and trunk, according to their sport modality. Main Outcome Measure: The feasibility was assessed with recruitment, success, and dropout rates. In addition, athletes’ perceptions of easiness, satisfaction, and safety during the lower-extremity or upper-extremity and trunk PPTs and mobility tests were assessed. Results: Seventy-three athletes were included, between January and April 2021: 41 were allocated to the lower-extremity and 32 to the upper-extremity and trunk PPTs and mobility test, according to their sports modality. The overall dropout rate was 20.55%; >89% of the athletes agreed that the PPTs and mobility tests via telehealth were easy to perform, >78% were satisfied, and >75% felt safe during the assessments. Conclusion: This study indicated that these 2 batteries of performance and mobility tests via telehealth are feasible to assess the lower and upper-extremities, and the trunk of athletes, considering the adherence, athletes’ perception of easiness, satisfaction, and safety.
BACKGROUND: Reduced mobility of upper and lower limbs has been associated with injuries in athletes. The Combined Elevation Test (CET) and the Weight-Bearing Dorsiflexion Lunge Test (WBDLT) are frequently used in clinical and research settings in face-to-face evaluations. However, some situations require physical distancing, and it is unknown whether those tests via telehealth are reliable. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra-rater reliability, the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), and the Minimum Detectable Change (MDC) for considering a real change on the CET and WBDLT were calculated for healthy athletes via telehealth. METHODS: 67 athletes (25 years, 73 kg, and 1.75 m on average) participated in this study. 37 athletes performed the CET and 50 performed the WBDLT (20 performed both tests). Reliability was assessed through two online evaluations (7 to 15-days apart). RESULTS: ICC3,3 ranged from 0.88–0.97 for the CET and from 0.95–0.98 for the WBDLT. For both tests, SEM values were low (< 8.9%) and the MDC90 was approximately 4 cm and 2 cm for the CET and WBDLT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth-based findings relating to CET and WBDLT are reliable in healthy adult athletes and can be used to screen this population when face-to-face evaluations are not feasible.
Context: Lower extremity physical performance tests (PPTs) have been widely used in sports rehabilitation and are commonly performed in person. However, some situations may disrupt the in-person health care delivery, such as social distancing due to the pandemic, traveling, and living in remote locations. Those situations may require adjustments in planning and applying measurement tests, and telehealth has become an alternative. Nevertheless, the reliability of lower extremity PPT tests via telehealth is still unknown. Objectives: To verify the test–retest reliability, SEM, and the minimum detectable change (MDC95) of PPTs via telehealth. Methods: Fifty asymptomatic athletes completed 2 assessment sessions 7 to 14 days apart. The assessment via telehealth consisted of warm-up exercises followed by the single-, triple-, and side-hop tests, and the long jump test, in random order. Intraclass correlation coefficient, SEM, and MDC95 were calculated for each PPT. Results: Single-hop test showed good to excellent reliability, with SEM and MDC95 ranging from 6.06 to 9.24 cm and 16.79 to 25.61 cm, respectively. The triple-hop test showed excellent reliability, with SEM and MDC95 ranging from 13.17 to 28.17 cm and 30.72 to 78.07 cm, respectively. Side-hop tests showed moderate reliability, with SEM and MDC95 ranging from 0.67 to 1.22 seconds and 2.00 to 3.39 seconds, respectively. The long jump test showed excellent reliability, with SEM and MDC95 ranging from 5.34 to 8.34 cm and 14.80 to 23.11 cm, respectively. Conclusion: The test–retest reliability of those PPTs via telehealth was acceptable. The SEM and MDC were provided to assist clinicians in interpreting those PPTs.
BackgroundLow-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training may induce positive neuromuscular adaptations, but proximal BFR effects are unclear. This study aims to investigate chronic effects of low-load resistance training (LLRT) with BFR on upper extremity neuromuscular performance of healthy women.MethodsThis protocol for clinical trial will include 78 volunteers randomized into three groups of 26 participants: LLRT (LLRT without BFR); LLRT + placebo blood flow restriction (20% BFR); and LLRT + 60% BFR. All groups will perform four sets of 15 repetitions at 20% of one-repetition maximum for each of the following muscles: serratus anterior, lateral shoulder rotators, and lower trapezius. Participants will be assessed before protocol, after completing eight weeks of protocol, and after a four-week follow-up. Primary outcome will be muscle strength, and secondary outcomes will be muscle excitation, perimetry, pain, subjective perceived exertion, affective valence with exercise, and power of upper extremity muscles.DiscussionExercises are often used to prevent and treat upper limb disorders. However, only two studies analyzed the effects of these exercises associated with BFR. Therefore, this protocol aims to fill the gaps in these studies and propose more reliable results on the subject.Trial registration: EnsaiosClinicos.gov.br (Identifier: RBR-3pd52f).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.