慢性下腰痛患者两种举重评估方法的比较。
A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain.
作者信息
Soer Remko, Poels Bas J J, Geertzen Jan H B, Reneman Michiel F
机构信息
Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 30.002, RA, 9750 Haren, The Netherlands.
出版信息
J Occup Rehabil. 2006 Dec;16(4):639-46. doi: 10.1007/s10926-006-9055-y.
UNLABELLED
The Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) and the lifting test of the WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (WWS) are well known as lifting performance tests. The objective of this study was to study whether the PILE and the WWS can be used interchangeably in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) and to explore whether psychosocial variables can explain possible differences.
METHODS
53 Patients (32 men and 21 women) with CLBP were tested twice in a counter balanced design. Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r > 0.75 and non-significant differences on two-tailed t tests were considered as good comparability.
RESULTS
Pearson Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (p < 0.01). Lifting performance on the WWS was a mean of 6.0 kg higher compared to the PILE (p < 0.01). The difference between the PILE and the WWS was unrelated to psychological variables.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the PILE and the WWS cannot be used interchangeably. Psychosocial variables cannot explain the differences between both tests.
未标注
渐进性等惯性举重评估（PILE）和WorkWell系统功能能力评估（WWS）的举重测试作为举重性能测试广为人知。本研究的目的是探讨PILE和WWS在慢性下腰痛（CLBP）患者中是否可以互换使用，并探究心理社会变量是否可以解释可能存在的差异。
方法
53例CLBP患者（32名男性和21名女性）采用平衡设计进行了两次测试。皮尔逊相关系数r>0.75且两尾t检验无显著差异被视为具有良好的可比性。
结果
皮尔逊相关系数为0.75（p<0.01）。与PILE相比，WWS的举重性能平均高6.0千克（p<0.01）。PILE和WWS之间的差异与心理变量无关。
结论
可以得出结论，PILE和WWS不能互换使用。心理社会变量无法解释两种测试之间的差异。
Zotero 插件