Standardizing Reporting Practices for Isokinetic Testing: a Delphi Study

Standardizing Reporting Practices for Isokinetic Testing: a Delphi Study

Isokinetic testing plays a crucial role in research and clinical practice, particularly for evaluating muscle strength, functional performance, and imbalances between muscle groups in fields such as rehabilitation, sports medicine, and orthopedics. Despite its widespread use, there is no international consensus on how to standardize protocols or report results, leading to significant variability in methodologies, measurement parameters, and data presentation.

This Delphi method study aims to develop a consensus framework for standardizing the reporting of isokinetic testing data, ensuring consistency and comparability in research and clinical practices.

Isokinetic tests are widely used in research and clinical practice to evaluate muscle strength, imbalances between muscle groups, and functional performance. These assessments are particularly important in rehabilitation, sports medicine, and orthopedics. However, the diversity in testing protocols, measured parameters, and reporting methods creates significant challenges for the comparability and interpretation of results.

Currently, there is no international consensus on how to report isokinetic test results. Scientific publications and clinical reports vary greatly in methodologies, units of measurement, and presentation of findings. Additionally, there is considerable heterogeneity in how results are presented, particularly regarding essential elements that ensure methodological reproducibility. This variability complicates the synthesis of data across studies and limits their practical application. As a result, healthcare professionals and researchers struggle to compare results, replicate studies, or effectively use the data in clinical decision-making.

The need to standardize reporting practices for isokinetic tests is therefore clear. A standardized framework would harmonize reporting, facilitate comparisons between studies, support the evaluation of therapeutic interventions, and improve the monitoring of patients or athletes over time. It would also enhance transparency and scientific rigor, which are critical for advancing knowledge and improving care.

The Delphi method, used in this study, is particularly suited to addressing this issue. It relies on an iterative process to gather the opinions of a panel of experts and establish a consensus on specific recommendations. By involving experts from various fields (physicians, physiotherapists, kinesiologists, and sport physiologists), this method ensures that the recommendations reflect a broad and balanced perspective. It also helps structure and prioritize key points, identifying essential elements for a standardized report.

The results of this study are expected to have several significant outcomes. First, they will provide a clear framework for standardizing the reporting of isokinetic tests, improving the quality and utility of the data reported. Second, this framework could be adopted internationally, fostering better collaboration between researchers and clinicians. Finally, it could serve as a foundation for developing official guidelines or recommendations, enhancing the validity and impact of isokinetic testing in clinical and scientific practices.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Demonstrated knowledge or experience in isokinetic testing, such as research, clinical practice, or equipment design.
• Clinicians, researchers, educators, or professionals with relevant expertise in rehabilitation, sports medicine, biomechanics, or related fields.
• At least 5 peer-reviewed publication (first author) or equivalent contribution in the field of isokinetic testing or related domains.
• Minimum of 5 years of professional experience in a relevant field.
• Agreement to participate in all Delphi rounds and provide informed consent.
• Ability to communicate and provide responses in the language used for the study (English).

Exclusion Criteria:

• Professionals with conflicts of interest that could bias their contributions, such as direct financial ties to specific isokinetic testing equipment manufacturers.
• Inability or unwillingness to commit to the iterative Delphi process, including providing timely responses to questionnaires.
• Accidental inclusion of an expert already represented in another capacity within the study (e.g., as a member of the organizing committee).