神经康复环境中五种临床可行的腿部伸肌力量测量方法的临床评估。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION International Journal of Rehabilitation Research Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000594
Edwina J Sutherland, Michelle B Kahn, Gavin P Williams
{"title":"神经康复环境中五种临床可行的腿部伸肌力量测量方法的临床评估。","authors":"Edwina J Sutherland,&nbsp;Michelle B Kahn,&nbsp;Gavin P Williams","doi":"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A gold-standard clinical measure of leg muscle strength has not been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate clinimetric properties of five clinically feasible measures of lower-limb extensor muscle strength in neurological rehabilitation settings. This was a cross-sectional observational study of 36 participants with leg weakness as a result of a neurological condition/injury. Participants were recruited across a range of walking abilities, from non- to independently ambulant. Each was assessed using each of the following five measures: manual muscle test (MMT), hand-held dynamometry (HHD), seated single leg press one repetition maximum (1RM), functional sit-to-stand (STS) test and seated single leg press measured with a load cell. Each clinical measure was evaluated for its discriminative ability, floor/ceiling effects, test-retest reliability and clinical utility. The load cell and HHD were the most discriminative of the tests and were also resistant to floor/ceiling effects; however, the load cell was superior to the HHD when compared for its clinical utility. The MMT/STS tests received perfect scores for clinical utility, although similar to the 1RM test, they were susceptible to floor and ceiling effects. The load cell leg press test was the only measure of lower limb strength to satisfy all four clinimetric properties. Implications for clinical practice include, firstly, that strength tests available to clinicians vary in their clinimetric properties. Secondly, the functional status of the person will determine selection of the best clinical strength test. And lastly, load cell device technology should be considered for clinical strength assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":14301,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinimetric evaluation of five clinically feasible measures of the leg extensor muscle strength in neurological rehabilitation settings.\",\"authors\":\"Edwina J Sutherland,&nbsp;Michelle B Kahn,&nbsp;Gavin P Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A gold-standard clinical measure of leg muscle strength has not been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate clinimetric properties of five clinically feasible measures of lower-limb extensor muscle strength in neurological rehabilitation settings. This was a cross-sectional observational study of 36 participants with leg weakness as a result of a neurological condition/injury. Participants were recruited across a range of walking abilities, from non- to independently ambulant. Each was assessed using each of the following five measures: manual muscle test (MMT), hand-held dynamometry (HHD), seated single leg press one repetition maximum (1RM), functional sit-to-stand (STS) test and seated single leg press measured with a load cell. Each clinical measure was evaluated for its discriminative ability, floor/ceiling effects, test-retest reliability and clinical utility. The load cell and HHD were the most discriminative of the tests and were also resistant to floor/ceiling effects; however, the load cell was superior to the HHD when compared for its clinical utility. The MMT/STS tests received perfect scores for clinical utility, although similar to the 1RM test, they were susceptible to floor and ceiling effects. The load cell leg press test was the only measure of lower limb strength to satisfy all four clinimetric properties. Implications for clinical practice include, firstly, that strength tests available to clinicians vary in their clinimetric properties. Secondly, the functional status of the person will determine selection of the best clinical strength test. And lastly, load cell device technology should be considered for clinical strength assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14301,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000594\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000594","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腿部肌肉力量的金标准临床测量尚未建立。因此,本研究的目的是评估神经康复环境中五种临床可行的下肢伸肌力量测量方法的临床特性。这是一项针对36名因神经系统疾病/损伤而出现腿部无力的参与者的横断面观察性研究。参与者被招募到一系列的行走能力,从非行走能力到独立行走能力。使用以下五种测量方法中的每一种进行评估:手动肌肉测试(MMT)、手持式测力仪(HHD)、最大重复一次的坐姿单腿按压(1RM)、功能性坐立式(STS)测试和用称重传感器测量的坐姿单脚按压。评估每项临床测量的辨别能力、下限/上限效应、重测可靠性和临床实用性。称重传感器和HHD是最具鉴别力的测试,也能抵抗地板/天花板的影响;然而,就其临床实用性而言,称重传感器优于HHD。MMT/STS测试在临床实用性方面获得了完美的分数,尽管与1RM测试类似,它们容易受到地板和天花板效应的影响。测压元件腿部压力测试是唯一能满足所有四种临床特性的下肢强度测量方法。对临床实践的影响包括,首先,临床医生可以使用的强度测试在其临床特性上各不相同。其次,患者的功能状态将决定最佳临床力量测试的选择。最后,称重传感器设备技术应被考虑用于临床强度评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinimetric evaluation of five clinically feasible measures of the leg extensor muscle strength in neurological rehabilitation settings.

A gold-standard clinical measure of leg muscle strength has not been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate clinimetric properties of five clinically feasible measures of lower-limb extensor muscle strength in neurological rehabilitation settings. This was a cross-sectional observational study of 36 participants with leg weakness as a result of a neurological condition/injury. Participants were recruited across a range of walking abilities, from non- to independently ambulant. Each was assessed using each of the following five measures: manual muscle test (MMT), hand-held dynamometry (HHD), seated single leg press one repetition maximum (1RM), functional sit-to-stand (STS) test and seated single leg press measured with a load cell. Each clinical measure was evaluated for its discriminative ability, floor/ceiling effects, test-retest reliability and clinical utility. The load cell and HHD were the most discriminative of the tests and were also resistant to floor/ceiling effects; however, the load cell was superior to the HHD when compared for its clinical utility. The MMT/STS tests received perfect scores for clinical utility, although similar to the 1RM test, they were susceptible to floor and ceiling effects. The load cell leg press test was the only measure of lower limb strength to satisfy all four clinimetric properties. Implications for clinical practice include, firstly, that strength tests available to clinicians vary in their clinimetric properties. Secondly, the functional status of the person will determine selection of the best clinical strength test. And lastly, load cell device technology should be considered for clinical strength assessments.

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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Rehabilitation Research is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for the publication of research into functioning, disability and contextual factors experienced by persons of all ages in both developed and developing societies. The wealth of information offered makes the journal a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and administrators in such fields as rehabilitation medicine, outcome measurement nursing, social and vocational rehabilitation/case management, return to work, special education, social policy, social work and social welfare, sociology, psychology, psychiatry assistive technology and environmental factors/disability. Areas of interest include functioning and disablement throughout the life cycle; rehabilitation programmes for persons with physical, sensory, mental and developmental disabilities; measurement of functioning and disability; special education and vocational rehabilitation; equipment access and transportation; information technology; independent living; consumer, legal, economic and sociopolitical aspects of functioning, disability and contextual factors.
期刊最新文献
The mediating role of kinesiophobia in pain intensity, physical function, and physical activity level in inflammatory arthritis. Technology for helping people with neuromotor, intellectual, and speech disabilities engage in leisure and communication activities: a proof-of-concept study. Efficacy of continuous passive motion compared to physiotherapy in rehabilitation after total knee replacement: a prospective randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Understanding the multidimensionality of a concern for falling in people with unilateral transtibial amputation: a cross-sectional study. Responsiveness of the Australian Spasticity Assessment Scale to botulinum neurotoxin injection into spastic wrist flexors after acquired brain injury.
×
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