慢性腰痛患者12周高强度间歇训练与中等强度连续训练:一项随机单盲可行性研究

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physiotherapy Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3
Tamara Cerini, Roger Hilfiker, Thomas F Riegler, Quinten T M Felsch
{"title":"慢性腰痛患者12周高强度间歇训练与中等强度连续训练:一项随机单盲可行性研究","authors":"Tamara Cerini,&nbsp;Roger Hilfiker,&nbsp;Thomas F Riegler,&nbsp;Quinten T M Felsch","doi":"10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":"12 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9059354/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"Tamara Cerini,&nbsp;Roger Hilfiker,&nbsp;Thomas F Riegler,&nbsp;Quinten T M Felsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9059354/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:目前,关于耐力高强度间歇训练(HIIT)对慢性腰痛患者的影响知之甚少。因此,必须首先评估HIIT的可行性和安全性。目前,关于耐力高强度间歇训练对慢性腰痛患者的影响知之甚少。因此,必须首先评估HIIT的可行性和安全性,然后才能安全地整合到研究和日常实践中。本研究旨在回答高强度间歇训练与中等强度连续训练(MICT)是否具有相当的依从性和可行性。方法:在这项随机、单盲、分配隐蔽的可行性研究中招募了非特异性慢性腰痛患者(年龄从29岁到69岁)。参与者在自行车计力器上训练30分钟,持续12周。一组进行HIIT,另一组进行MICT。结果:筛选的45名受试者中有30人参与。HIIT组的依从率为94%(中位数为0.94,IQR为0.23),MICT组为96%(中位数为0.96,IQR为0.08),组间无差异:估计差异中位数为- 0.01 [95% CI, - 0.11至0.06;p = 0.76]。在享受度(中位数为3,IQR 1 vs中位数为2,IQR 1.8)和继续训练的意愿(中位数为3,IQR 1 vs中位数为3,IQR 0.4)方面的结果相似。两组在疼痛和残疾方面均有改善,在疼痛方面无组间差异[差异中位数为0.5;95% CI, - 1 ~ 2;P = 0.95]在残疾方面也没有差异[差异中位数,1.78;95% CI, - 6.44 ~ 9.56;p = 0.64]。结论:两组患者依从率无差异。在非特异性慢性腰痛中,HIIT和MICT一样可行,可以在未来更大规模的试验中使用,以加深对这一特定人群HIIT的了解。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545。2019年8月13日注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study.

Background: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility.

Methods: Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT.

Results: Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64].

Conclusion: There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Indoor and outdoor 10-Meter Walk Test and Timed Up and Go in patients after total hip arthroplasty: a reliability and comparative study. Erratum in: Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger range of motion using a written protocol. A decade of growth: preserving the original meaning of research for physiotherapists. Neurological conditions and community-based physical activity: physical therapists' belief and actions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1