Purpose: This study aimed to examine the reliability of trunk extensor strength assessment with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD). Methods: Thirty-one men performed strength assessment at different velocities (V) (V1 = 0.15 m·s−1, V2 = 0.30 m·s−1, V3 = 0.45 m·s−1) and range of movement (R) (R1 = 25% cm; R2 = 50% cm), and isometric contraction at 90º. Reliability was obtained through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), typical error (TE), and coefficient of variation (CV). Results: The absolute reliability provided stable repeatability of the average eccentric strength in the V1R1 condition (CV = 9.52%) and the maximum eccentric strength in V1R1 (CV = 9.63%) and V2R2 (CV = 9.66%). The relative reliability of the trunk extensor’s average strength was good (ICC = 0.77–0.83) for concentric and good (ICC = 0.78–0.85) and moderate (ICC = 0.67–0.74) for eccentric contraction. Also, good (ICC = 0.77–0.81) and moderate (ICC = 0.55–0.74) reliability of the maximum strength were obtained for concentric and eccentric contraction. The most reliable manifestation to evaluate the concentric (CV = 11.33%) and eccentric (CV = 9.52%) strength was the average strength in the V1R1 condition and the maximum strength (CV = 10.29%) to isometric assessment. The average concentric strength in the V2R2 condition (r = 0.69) and the maximum eccentric strength in the V1R1 condition (r = 0.65) were the best related to the maximum isometric strength. Conclusions: FEMD is a highly reliable device to evaluate trunk extensors strength.

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to: (I) determine the quality of evidence from studies assessing trunk isokinetic strength in subjects with acute low back pain (ALBP) compared to healthy subjects and (II) establish reference values of isokinetic trunk strength in subjects with ALBP. Methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements were followed using keywords associated with trunk, strength and low back pain. Four databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: A total of 1604 articles were retrieved, four included in this review. All were evaluated as high risk of bias (Rob). Due to the high Rob and the diversity of protocols, instruments and variables used, it was not possible to determine reference values for subjects with ALBP, we can only establish a range of flexion peak torque (PT) between 175.1 and 89.7 Nm at 60°/s and between 185 and 81.5 Nm at 120°/s, and for extension PT between 240.0 and 91.5 Nm at 60°/s and between 217.5 and 69.2 Nm at 120°/s in subjects with ALBP. Conclusions: Due to the low quality of the evidence and the diversity of protocols used when measuring trunk isokinetic strength, it is necessary to carry out new high-quality research to establish reference values of trunk strength in subjects with ALBP.

Atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) is a novel biomarker related to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and physical activity (PA) have an inverse relationship with the AIP, while sedentary time (ST) and fatness present a positive association. This study aimed to determine the combined and independent association of CRF, PA, and ST with the AIP, and additionally to establish the waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) mediation role. Data from the Chilean national health survey were used (4671 adults). A PACS (Physical Activity Cardiorespiratory Sedentary) score was created ranging from 0 to 3, indicating the number of positive recommendations met (PA, ST, and CRF). AIP was calculated (Log10 triglycerides/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol). The combined analysis showed that compared to those with a PACS score of 0, those with a score of 1 or 2 did not present significantly reduced AIP values (adjusted by the WHtR); however, those with a score of 3 did (OR (odds ratio) = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.77; p < 0.001). Independent analysis showed that CRF seems to be the only variable that supports the combined result (β = −0.212; p < 0.001). Finally, the mediation analysis indicated that the WHtR mediated the association between CRF and the AIP in 34.2% of cases. Overall, only CRF had a significant and inverse association with the AIP. Nonetheless, around one-third of this beneficial relationship is affected by an elevated WHtR.

BACKGROUND: Imbalance or decreased trunk strength has been associated with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed (I) to evaluate the quality of evidence of studies evaluating the reliability of trunk strength assessment with an isokinetic dynamometer in NSLBP patients, (II) to examine the reliability of trunk strength assessment using an isokinetic dynamometer in NSLBP patients and (III) to determine the most reliable protocol for trunk strength assessment in NSLBP patients. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Three databases were used: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with the following keywords: Isokinetic, Dynamometer, Trunk strength testing, Muscle testing, Isokinetic measurement, CORE, Abdominal muscles, Abdominal wall, Torso, Trunk, Spine, Reliability and, Reproducibility. We included only test-retest studies, focused on the reliability of isometric and isokinetic strength assessed with an isokinetic dynamometer in NSLBP adults’ patients, published in English and from inception to March 30, 2021. The methodological quality was evaluated with the CAT scale and QAREL checklist. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-seven articles were retrieved, of which five are included in this review. Three articles provide good quality of evidence, the reliability of trunk strength assessment in NSLBP patients is excellent, and the most reliable protocol for isometric assessment is in a seated position (ICC = 0.94–0.98) and for isokinetic strength in standing position, at 60∘/s and 120∘/s (ICC = 0.98). CONCLUSION: There is good quality evidence regarding the trunk strength assessment’s reliability. Reliability is excellent in NSLBP patients; however, a familiarization process should be considered to obtain clinically reliable data. The most reliable protocol is in a seated position for isometric strength and a standing position for isokinetic strength.