2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.01.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Isokinetic testing of biceps strength and endurance in dominant versus nondominant upper extremities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
20
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
2
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Wittstein et al . [7] has demonstrated that the dominant and nondominant upper extremity have equivalent peak torque for both flexion and forearm supination. The normal contralateral arm can therefore be used as a control for isokinetic evaluation of biceps function, without adjusting results for hand dominance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wittstein et al . [7] has demonstrated that the dominant and nondominant upper extremity have equivalent peak torque for both flexion and forearm supination. The normal contralateral arm can therefore be used as a control for isokinetic evaluation of biceps function, without adjusting results for hand dominance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, although we aimed to test the dominant arm in all subjects, two PwMS performed the tests with their non-dominant hand. This is not thought to importantly influence the fatigability results, since previous reports already stated that there was no difference in fatigability between the dominant and non-dominant hands in PwMS [ 15 ] and in the elbow in healthy subjects [ 43 , 44 ]. We only did a short movement trial of fifteen minutes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was no appreciable alteration of the data when standardized for arm dominance, using a conversion factor of À8%. 23 The strength data are outlined in Table IV and Supplementary Online Table. More than half of the patients reported subjective weakness of the arm compared with before their injury. The rate was similar in each group (Table II).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%