↓ Skip to main content

Disentangling manual muscle testing and Applied Kinesiology: critique and reinterpretation of a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Osteopathy, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Disentangling manual muscle testing and Applied Kinesiology: critique and reinterpretation of a literature review
Published in
Chiropractic & Osteopathy, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1746-1340-15-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitchell Haas, Robert Cooperstein, David Peterson

Abstract

Cuthbert and Goodheart recently published a narrative review on the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing (MMT) in the Journal. The authors should be recognized for their effort to synthesize this vast body of literature. However, the review contains critical errors in the search methods, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, validity definitions, study interpretation, literature synthesis, generalizability of study findings, and conclusion formulation that merit a reconsideration of the authors' findings. Most importantly, a misunderstanding of the review could easily arise because the authors did not distinguish the general use of muscle strength testing from the specific applications that distinguish the Applied Kinesiology (AK) chiropractic technique. The article makes the fundamental error of implying that the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing lends some degree of credibility to the unique diagnostic procedures of AK. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a critical appraisal of the review, suggest conclusions consistent with the literature both reviewed and omitted, and extricate conclusions that can be made about AK in particular from those that can be made about MMT. When AK is disentangled from standard orthopedic muscle testing, the few studies evaluating unique AK procedures either refute or cannot support the validity of AK procedures as diagnostic tests. The evidence to date does not support the use of MMT for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Australia 2 2%
Russia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 83 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Postgraduate 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Other 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Unspecified 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Sports and Recreations 6 7%
Other 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#559,488
of 13,538,736 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#7
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,070
of 119,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,538,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 119,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them