Força de preensão – Análise de concordância entre dois dinamómetros: JAMAR vs E‑Link

Introdução – Avaliar a força de preensão mostrou ser de primordial importância pela sua relação com a capacidade funcional dos indivíduos, permitindo determinar níveis de risco para incapacidade futura e, assim, estabelecer estratégias de prevenção. Grande parte dos estudos utiliza o dinamómetro hidráulico JAMAR que fornece o valor da força isométrica obtida durante a execução do movimento de preensão palmar. Contudo, existem outros dinamómetros disponíveis, como é o caso do dinamómetro portátil computorizado E‑Link (Biometrics) que fornece o valor da força máxima (peak force), para além de outras variáveis, como a taxa de fadiga. Não existem, contudo, estudos que nos permitam aceitar e comparar ou não os valores obtidos com os dois equipamentos e porventura utilizá‑los indistintamente. Objetivos – Avaliar a concordância entre as medições da força de preensão (força máxima ou peak force em Kg) obtida a partir de dois equipamentos diferentes (dinamómetros portáteis): um computorizado (E‑Link, Biometrics) e outro hidráulico (JAMAR). Metodologia – Foram avaliados 29 indivíduos (13H; 16M; 22±7 anos; 23,2±3,3 kg/m2) em 2 dias consecutivos, na mesma altura do dia. A posição de teste escolhida foi a recomendada pela Associação Americana de Terapeutas Ocupacionais e foi escolhido o melhor resultado de entre 3 tentativas para a mão dominante. Realizou‑se uma análise correlacional entre os valores obtidos na variável analisada em cada equipamento (coeficiente de Spearman) e uma análise de Bland & Altman para verificar a concordância entre as duas medições. Resultados – O coeficiente de correlação entre as duas medições foi elevado (rS= 0,956; p<0,001) e, pela análise de Bland & Altman, os valores obtidos encontram‑se todos dentro do intervalo da média±2SD. Conclusões – As duas medições mostraram ser concordantes, revelando que os dinamómetros testados podem ser comparáveis ou utilizados indistintamente em diferentes estudos e populações. ABSTRACT: Introduction – Assess grip strength has proved to be of vital importance because of its relationship with functional capacity of individuals, in order to determine levels of risk for future disability and thereby establish prevention strategies. Most studies use the JAMAR Hydraulic dynamometer that provides the value of isometric force obtained during the performance of grip movement. However, there are other dynamometers available, such as portable computerized dynamometer E‑Link (Biometrics), which provides the value of maximum force (peak force) in addition to other variables as the rate of fatigue. There are no studies that allow us to accept or not and compare values obtained with both devices and perhaps use them interchangeably. Purpose – To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of grip strength (peak force or maximum force in kg) obtained from two different devices (portable dynamometers): a computerized (E‑Link, Biometrics) and a hydraulic (JAMAR). Methodology – 29 subjects (13H, 16M, 22 ± 7 years, 23.2 ± 3.3 kg/m2) were assessed on two consecutive days at the same time of day. The test position chosen was recommended by the American Association of Occupational Therapists and was considered the best result from three attempts for the dominant hand. A correlation was studied between values obtained in the variable analyzed in each equipment (Spearman coefficient) and Bland‑Altman analysis to assess the agreement between the two measurements. Results – The correlation coefficient between the two measurements was high (rs = 0,956, p <0,001) and Bland & Altman analysis of the values obtained are all within the range of mean±2SD. Conclusions – The two measurements were shown to be concordant, revealing that the tested dynamometers can be comparable or used interchangeably in different studies and populations.

Constrains on the structure of Maio Island (Cape Verde) by a three-dimensional gravity model: Imaging partially exhumed magma chambers

We propose a 3-D gravity model for the volcanic structure of the island of Maio (Cape Verde archipelago) with the objective of solving some open questions concerning the geometry and depth of the intrusive Central Igneous Complex. A gravity survey was made covering almost the entire surface of the island. The gravity data was inverted through a non-linear 3-D approach which provided a model constructed in a random growth process. The residual Bouguer gravity field shows a single positive anomaly presenting an elliptic shape with a NWSE trending long axis. This Bouguer gravity anomaly is slightly off-centred with the island but its outline is concordant with the surface exposure of the Central Igneous Complex. The gravimetric modelling shows a high-density volume whose centre of mass is about 4500 m deep. With increasing depth, and despite the restricted gravimetric resolution, the horizontal sections of the model suggest the presence of two distinct bodies, whose relative position accounts for the elongated shape of the high positive Bouguer gravity anomaly. These bodies are interpreted as magma chambers whose coeval volcanic counterparts are no longer preserved. The orientation defined by the two bodies is similar to that of other structures known in the southern group of the Cape Verde islands, thus suggesting a possible structural control constraining the location of the plutonic intrusions.