An electromyographic comparison of a modified version of the plank with a long lever and posterior tilt versus the traditional plank exercise

The purpose of the study was to compare core muscle activation of the tradition prone plank with a modified version performed with a long-lever and posterior-tilt using surface electromyography. To further determine if a specific component of this modified plank was more effective than the other in enhancing muscle activity, the plank with a long lever and the plank with a posterior pelvic tilt were studied individually. Nineteen participants performed all four variations of the plank for 30 seconds in a randomized order with 5-minute rest between exercise bouts. Compared to the traditional prone plank, the long-lever posterior-tilt plank displayed a significantly increased activation of the upper rectus abdominis (p < 0.001), lower abdominal stabilizers (p < 0.001), and external oblique (p < 0.001). The long-lever plank showed significantly greater activity compared to the traditional plank in the upper rectus abdominis (p = 0.015) and lower abdominal stabilizers (p < 0.001), while the posterior tilt plank elicited greater activity in the external oblique (p = 0.028). In conclusion, the long-lever posterior-tilt plank significantly increases muscle activation compared to the traditional prone plank. The long-lever component tends to contribute more to these differences than the posterior-tilt component.     

Utilization of biological variation data in the interpretation of laboratory test results – survey about clinicians’ opinion and knowledge

IntroductionTo interpret test results correctly, understanding of the variations that affect test results is essential. The aim of this study is: 1) to evaluate the clinicians’ knowledge and opinion concerning biological variation (BV), and 2) to investigate if clinicians use BV in the interpretation of test results.Materials and methodsThis study uses a questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions. Questions were selected from the real-life numerical examples of interpretation of test results, the knowledge about main sources of variations in laboratories and the opinion of clinicians on BV. A total of 399 clinicians were interviewed, and the answers were evaluated using a scoring system ranked from A (clinician has the highest level of knowledge and the ability of using BV data) to D (clinician has no knowledge about variations in laboratory). The results were presented as number (N) and percentage (%).ResultsAltogether, 60.4% of clinicians have knowledge of pre-analytical and analytical variations; but only 3.5% of them have knowledge related to BV. The number of clinicians using BV data or reference change value (RCV) to interpret measurements results was zero, while 79.4% of clinicians accepted that the difference between two measurements results located within the reference interval may be significant.ConclusionsClinicians do not use BV data or tools derived from BV such as RCV to interpret test results. It is recommended that BV should be included in the medical school curriculum, and clinicians should be encouraged to use BV data for safe and valid interpretation of test results.