Appraising the Validity of Tools to Measure Multijoint Leg Power: A Systematic Review

To critically appraise the validity of tools used to measure maximum multijoint leg extension power in older individuals.

A systematic literature search was performed in 5 electronic databases: PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS, and PEDRO from inception and without limits on the year of publication. Secondary searches included hand searching of the reference lists.

One author performed all the searches and identified relevant studies. A second author repeated the search to ensure that no articles were overlooked. Only studies that measured multijoint leg extension power were included. Those that used jump tests on force plates were excluded. Forty-five studies were identified that used 3 different tools. Three of these studies addressed the validity of the instruments and were included in the analyses performed by all the authors. Decisions made by consensus.

Critical analyses were based on the reference instrument used, reproducibility of methods, appropriateness of the statistical analysis, commercial availability of the tool, and potential conflicts of interests, including financial support. Decisions regarding the data analyses were made by consensus among all authors.

We identified 3 tools all of which simulated recumbent bicycles. Two of the 3 identified tools are not commercially available. Each of the 3 included studies used correlational analysis to determine the validity of their tool, which does not describe the accuracy of the measured power in comparison to the reference standard.

We were unable to identify a validated tool that measured maximum multijoint leg extension power that was appropriate for older individuals. Future research should address this important gap.