Fritz Julie M, Whitman Julie M, Childs John D
Division of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, and Clinical Outcomes Research Scientist, Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;86(9):1745-52. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.028.
To examine the predictive validity of posterior-anterior (PA) mobility testing in a group of patients with low back pain (LBP).
Randomized controlled trial.
Outpatient physical therapy clinics.
Patients with LBP (N=131; mean age +/- standard deviation, 33.9+/-10.9 y; range, 19-59 y), and a median symptom duration of 27 days (range, 1-5941 d). Patients completed a baseline examination, including PA mobility testing, and were categorized with respect to both hypomobility and hypermobility (present or absent), and treated for 4 weeks.
Seventy patients were randomized to an intervention involving manipulation and 61 to a stabilization exercise intervention.
Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores were collected at baseline and after 4 weeks. Three-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the effect of mobility categorization and intervention group on the change on the ODQ with time. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistics were calculated.
Ninety-three (71.0%) patients were judged to have hypomobility present and 15 (11.5%) were judged with hypermobility present. The ANOVAs resulted in significant interaction effects. Pairwise comparisons showed greater improvements among patients receiving manipulation categorized with hypomobility present versus absent (mean difference, 23.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-42.4%), and among patients receiving stabilization categorized with hypermobility present versus absent (mean difference, 36.4%; 95% CI, 10.3%-69.3%). For patients with hypomobility, failure rates were 26% with manipulation and 74.4% with stabilization (NNT=2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5). For patients with hypermobility, failure rates were 83.3% and 22.2% for manipulation and stabilization, respectively (NNT=1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.2).
Patients with LBP judged to have lumbar hypomobility experienced greater benefit from an intervention including manipulation; those judged to have hypermobility were more likely to benefit from a stabilization exercise program.
检验后前位(PA)活动度测试对一组腰痛(LBP)患者的预测效度。
随机对照试验。
门诊物理治疗诊所。
腰痛患者(N = 131;平均年龄±标准差,33.9±10.9岁;范围,19 - 59岁),症状持续时间中位数为27天(范围,1 - 5941天)。患者完成了包括PA活动度测试在内的基线检查,并根据活动度降低和活动度过高(存在或不存在)进行分类,然后接受4周的治疗。
70名患者被随机分配到接受手法治疗的干预组,61名患者被分配到稳定化运动干预组。
在基线和4周后收集Oswestry功能障碍问卷(ODQ)评分。进行三因素重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)以评估活动度分类和干预组对ODQ随时间变化的影响。计算需治疗人数(NNT)统计量。
93名(71.0%)患者被判定存在活动度降低,15名(11.5%)患者被判定存在活动度过高。方差分析产生了显著的交互作用。两两比较显示,在存在活动度降低的情况下,接受手法治疗的患者比不存在活动度降低的患者改善更大(平均差异,23.7%;95%置信区间[CI],5.1% - 42.4%);在存在活动度过高的情况下,接受稳定化运动治疗的患者比不存在活动度过高的患者改善更大(平均差异,36.4%;95% CI,10.3% - 69.3%)。对于存在活动度降低的患者,手法治疗的失败率为26%,稳定化运动治疗的失败率为74.4%(NNT = 2.1;95% CI,1.6 - 3.5)。对于存在活动度过高的患者,手法治疗和稳定化运动治疗的失败率分别为83.3%和22.2%(NNT = 1.6;95% CI,1.2 - 10.2)。
被判定存在腰椎活动度降低的腰痛患者从包括手法治疗的干预中获益更大;被判定存在活动度过高的患者更可能从稳定化运动计划中获益。