Koumantakis G A, Arnall F, Cooper R G, Oldham J A
Centre for Rehabilitation Science, Central Manchester Healthcare Trust, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.
Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2001 Mar;16(3):263-6. doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00113-3.
Comparison of the accuracy of surface electromyogram for back muscle endurance assessment with two different tests.
Test-retest measurements in 16 healthy volunteers on two separate occasions for each test under controlled conditions.
Back muscle endurance is considered important in low back pain rehabilitation. Reliability of paraspinal muscle endurance assessment is a pre-requisite for accurate and meaningful clinical applications of the technique.
All participants performed each test twice. A direct comparison was made between two popular fatigue testing methods, the modified Biering-Sørensen and a 60% maximum voluntary isometric contraction in the upright position during which time fatigue was assessed from the electromyogram spectral and amplitude analysis.
Reproducibility of initial median frequency was excellent for both tests. Normalised median frequency slope values were more reliable with the 60% maximum voluntary contraction upright test. The clinical applicability of these measures in detecting significant differences after patient rehabilitation is recommended. Root mean square had very large between-day error for both tests.
比较两种不同测试方法用于评估背部肌肉耐力时表面肌电图的准确性。
16名健康志愿者在受控条件下,每次测试分两次独立进行重测。
背部肌肉耐力在腰痛康复中被认为很重要。椎旁肌耐力评估的可靠性是该技术准确且有意义的临床应用的前提条件。
所有参与者每项测试均进行两次。对两种常用的疲劳测试方法进行直接比较,即改良的比林-索伦森测试和直立位60%最大自主等长收缩测试,在此期间通过肌电图频谱和幅度分析评估疲劳情况。
两种测试中初始中位频率的可重复性均极佳。在直立位60%最大自主收缩测试中,标准化中位频率斜率值更可靠。推荐这些测量方法在检测患者康复后显著差异方面的临床适用性。两种测试的均方根在不同日期间的误差都非常大。