Clinimetric properties of the knee extension prone test (KEPT): a new method to assess knee hyperextension deficit
Our take
Is the knee extension prone test (KEPT) an accurate and consistent way to measure how much knee hyperextension is limited?
The KEPT is a valid and reliable low-cost method for assessing knee hyperextension deficit in both healthy people and those with a history of knee injury. It showed good to excellent reliability and moderate to good agreement with established measurement methods.
SupportsRead paper
Primary studyModerate evidence
Key points
- The KEPT is proposed as a low-cost, affordable alternative for measuring knee hyperextension deficit.
- Two examiners compared the KEPT against goniometry, inclinometry, and photogrammetry in healthy participants and participants with a history of knee injury.
- Reliability was good within the same examiner and excellent between different examiners.
- Validity against existing measurement methods ranged from moderate to good.
- Measurement error was small within one examiner but larger between examiners.
How it was conducted
- Design
- Clinimetric study of concurrent validity and reliability
- Groups
- Group 1, healthy participants; Group 2, participants with a history of knee injury
- Examiners
- Two examiners performing each evaluation
- Comparison methods
- Lateral knee goniometry, anterior tibial inclinometry, lateral photogrammetry in supine and prone
- Statistics
- Pearson correlation (r) for validity; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for reliability
What they found
- Intra-examiner reliability was good (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89).
- Inter-examiner reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94).
- Standard error of measurement was 0.47 degrees intra-examiner and 1.30 degrees inter-examiner.
- Minimum detectable change was 2.35 degrees intra-examiner and 6.5 degrees inter-examiner.
- Concurrent validity ranged from moderate to good (r = 0.54 to 0.78, p < 0.01).
Limitations
- Validity was only moderate at the lower end of the correlation range, so the KEPT does not perfectly match reference methods.
- The exact total sample size and group sizes are not reported in the available text.
- Between-examiner measurement error and minimum detectable change were notably larger than within-examiner values.
- As a single clinimetric study, the findings need replication in broader populations and clinical settings.
Why it matters
- For patients
- If your clinician checks your knee hyperextension, the KEPT can give a consistent measurement without expensive equipment.
- For clinicians
- The KEPT offers a valid, reliable, low-cost option for assessing knee hyperextension deficit, with small within-examiner error but a larger 6.5 degree minimum detectable change when different examiners take measurements.
- For readers
- This study introduces and validates a new simple test rather than evaluating a treatment, supporting its use as a measurement tool.
Source
doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2022.04.002
Read the original paperClinically assessing this area? See the knee special tests.
More Knee studies
- Low-load blood flow restriction vs heavy-load resistance training in early rehab after BPTB ACL reconstruction: RCTRCT
- Sticks and stones: bias and readability assessment in LLM-generated patient education for anterior cruciate injuryPrimary study
- Effect of knee extensor power on knee pain in adults with or at risk for osteoarthritis: the MOST studyPrimary study
- Considerations for a women's rehabilitation programme following ACL reconstruction: a concept mapping approachPrimary study
- Rethinking acute sports injuries: evidence for an overuse mechanism in hamstring and ACL injuriesPrimary study
- A new way of grading severity of ACL rupture on acute MRI to consider potential for non-surgical healing with the Cross Bracing Protocol (ACL-ARCH criteria)Primary study