@article{PrillWalterKrolikowskaetal.2021,
  author    = {Prill, Robert and Walter, Marina and Kr{\´o}likowska, Aleksandra and Becker, Roland},
  title     = {A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and clinical applications of wearable movement sensors for knee joint rehabilitation},
  series = {Sensors},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Sensors},
  number    = {24},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1424-8220},
  doi       = {10.3390/s21248221},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In clinical practice, only a few reliable measurement instruments are available for monitoring knee joint rehabilitation. Advances to replace motion capturing with sensor data measurement have been made in the last years. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on the implementation, diagnostic accuracy, and facilitators and barriers of integrating wearable sensor technology in clinical practices based on a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. For critical appraisal, the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool for reliability and measurement of error was used. PUBMED, Prospero, Cochrane database, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Six studies reporting reliability aspects in using wearable sensor technology at any point after knee surgery in humans were included. All studies reported excellent results with high reliability coefficients, high limits of agreement, or a few detectable errors. They used different or partly inappropriate methods for estimating reliability or missed reporting essential information. Therefore, a moderate risk of bias must be considered. Further quality criterion studies in clinical settings are needed to synthesize the evidence for providing transparent recommendations for the clinical use of wearable movement sensors in knee joint rehabilitation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{DechBittmannSchaefer2021,
  author    = {Dech, Silas and Bittmann, Frank and Schaefer, Laura},
  title     = {Assessment of the Adaptive Force of Elbow Extensors in Healthy Subjects Quantified by a Novel Pneumatically Driven Measurement System with Considerations of Its Quality Criteria},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {710},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51095},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-510950},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the capability of the neuromuscular system to adapt adequately to external forces with the intention of maintaining a position or motion. One specific approach to assessing AF is to measure force and limb position during a pneumatically applied increasing external force. Through this method, the highest (AFmax), the maximal isometric (AFisomax) and the maximal eccentric Adaptive Force (AFeccmax) can be determined. The main question of the study was whether the AFisomax is a specific and independent parameter of muscle function compared to other maximal forces. In 13 healthy subjects (9 male and 4 female), the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (pre- and post-MVIC), the three AF parameters and the MVIC with a prior concentric contraction (MVICpri-con) of the elbow extensors were measured 4 times on two days. Arithmetic mean (M) and maximal (Max) torques of all force types were analyzed. Regarding the reliability of the AF parameters between days, the mean changes were 0.31-1.98 Nm (0.61\%-5.47\%, p = 0.175-0.552), the standard errors of measurements (SEM) were 1.29-5.68 Nm (2.53\%-15.70\%) and the ICCs(3,1) = 0.896-0.996. M and Max of AFisomax, AFmax and pre-MVIC correlated highly (r = 0.85-0.98). The M and Max of AFisomax were significantly lower (6.12-14.93 Nm; p ≤ 0.001-0.009) and more variable between trials (coefficient of variation (CVs) ≥ 21.95\%) compared to those of pre-MVIC and AFmax (CVs ≤ 5.4\%). The results suggest the novel measuring procedure is suitable to reliably quantify the AF, whereby the presented measurement errors should be taken into consideration. The AFisomax seems to reflect its own strength capacity and should be detected separately. It is suggested its normalization to the MVIC or AFmax could serve as an indicator of a neuromuscular function.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DechBittmannSchaefer2021,
  author    = {Dech, Silas and Bittmann, Frank and Schaefer, Laura},
  title     = {Assessment of the adaptive force of Elbow extensors in healthy subjects quantified by a novel pneumatically driven measurement system with considerations of its quality criteria},
  series = {Diagnostics : open access journal},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Diagnostics : open access journal},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2075-4418},
  doi       = {10.3390/diagnostics11060923},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the capability of the neuromuscular system to adapt adequately to external forces with the intention of maintaining a position or motion. One specific approach to assessing AF is to measure force and limb position during a pneumatically applied increasing external force. Through this method, the highest (AFmax), the maximal isometric (AFisomax) and the maximal eccentric Adaptive Force (AFeccmax) can be determined. The main question of the study was whether the AFisomax is a specific and independent parameter of muscle function compared to other maximal forces. In 13 healthy subjects (9 male and 4 female), the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (pre- and post-MVIC), the three AF parameters and the MVIC with a prior concentric contraction (MVICpri-con) of the elbow extensors were measured 4 times on two days. Arithmetic mean (M) and maximal (Max) torques of all force types were analyzed. Regarding the reliability of the AF parameters between days, the mean changes were 0.31-1.98 Nm (0.61\%-5.47\%, p = 0.175-0.552), the standard errors of measurements (SEM) were 1.29-5.68 Nm (2.53\%-15.70\%) and the ICCs(3,1) = 0.896-0.996. M and Max of AFisomax, AFmax and pre-MVIC correlated highly (r = 0.85-0.98). The M and Max of AFisomax were significantly lower (6.12-14.93 Nm; p ≤ 0.001-0.009) and more variable between trials (coefficient of variation (CVs) ≥ 21.95\%) compared to those of pre-MVIC and AFmax (CVs ≤ 5.4\%). The results suggest the novel measuring procedure is suitable to reliably quantify the AF, whereby the presented measurement errors should be taken into consideration. The AFisomax seems to reflect its own strength capacity and should be detected separately. It is suggested its normalization to the MVIC or AFmax could serve as an indicator of a neuromuscular function.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannaschNickelSchulze2021,
  author    = {Jannasch, Franziska and Nickel, Daniela and Schulze, Matthias B.},
  title     = {The reliability and relative validity of predefined dietary patterns were higher than that of exploratory dietary patterns in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam population},
  series = {British journal of nutrition : BJN : an international journal of nutritional science / published on behalf of The Nutrition Society},
  volume    = {125},
  journal   = {British journal of nutrition : BJN : an international journal of nutritional science / published on behalf of The Nutrition Society},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1475-2662},
  doi       = {10.1017/S0007114520003517},
  pages     = {1270 -- 1280},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The aim of this study was to assess the ability of the FFQ to describe reliable and valid dietary pattern (DP) scores. In a total of 134 participants of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study aged 35-67 years, the FFQ was applied twice (baseline and after 1 year) to assess its reliability. Between November 1995 and March 1997, twelve 24-h dietary recalls (24HDR) as reference instrument were applied to assess the validity of the FFQ. Exploratory DP were derived by principal component analyses. Investigated predefined DP were the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) and two Mediterranean diet indices. From dietary data of each FFQ, two exploratory DP were retained, but differed in highly loading food groups, resulting in moderate correlations (r 0 center dot 45-0 center dot 58). The predefined indices showed higher correlations between the FFQ (r(AHEI) 0 center dot 62, r(Mediterranean Diet Pyramid Index (MedPyr)) 0 center dot 62 and r(traditional Mediterranean Diet Score (tMDS)) 0 center dot 51). From 24HDR dietary data, one exploratory DP retained differed in composition to the first FFQ-based DP, but showed similarities to the second DP, reflected by a good correlation (r 0 center dot 70). The predefined DP correlated moderately (r 0 center dot 40-0 center dot 60). To conclude, long-term analyses on exploratory DP should be interpreted with caution, due to only moderate reliability. The validity differed extensively for the two exploratory DP. The investigated predefined DP showed a better reliability and a moderate validity, comparable to other studies. Within the two Mediterranean diet indices, the MedPyr performed better than the tMDs in this middle-aged, semi-urban German study population.},
  language  = {en}
}