Suppr超能文献

针对长期背部和颈部疼痛患者的10项测试组合的可靠性:没有接受过正规医学教育的检查人员能否在不影响质量的情况下使用?一项方法学研究。

The reliability of a 10-test package for patients with prolonged back and neck pain: could an examiner without formal medical education be used without loss of quality? A methodological study.

作者信息

Lindell Odd, Eriksson Lars, Strender Lars-Erik

机构信息

Center for Family Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.

出版信息

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Apr 3;8:31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the rehabilitation of patients with prolonged back and neck pain, the physical impairment should be assessed. Previous research has exclusively engaged medically educated examiners, mostly physiotherapists. However, less biased evaluations of efforts at rehabilitation might be achieved by personnel standing outside the treatment work itself. Therefore, if medically untrained examiners could be used without cost to the quality, this might produce a better evaluation at defensible cost and could also be useful in a research context. The aim of this study was to answer the question: given a 10-test package for patients with prolonged back and neck pain, could an examiner without formal medical education be used without loss of quality? Five of the ten tests required the examiner to keep a firm hold against the foundation of those parts of the participant's body that were not supposed to move during the test.

METHODS

Examination by an experienced physiotherapist (A) in performing the package was compared with that by a research assistant (B) without formal medical education. The reliability, including inter- and intra-rater reliability, was assessed. In the inter-rater reliability study, 50 participants (30 patients + 20 healthy subjects) were tested once each by A and B. In the intra-rater reliability study, the 20 healthy subjects were tested twice by A or B. One-way ANOVA intra-class-correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated and its possible systematic error was determined using a t-test.

RESULTS

All five tests that required no manual fixation had acceptable reliability (ICC > .60 and no indication of systematic error). Only one of the five tests that required fixation had acceptable reliability. The difference (five vs. one) was significant (p = .01).

CONCLUSION

In a 10-test package for patients with prolonged back and neck pain, an examiner without formal medical education could be used without loss of quality, at least for the five tests requiring no manual fixation. To make our results more generalizable and their implications more searching, a similar study should be conducted with two or more examiners with and without formal medical education, and the intra-rater reliability study should also include patients and involve more participants.

摘要

背景

在长期颈肩痛患者的康复治疗中,应对身体损伤进行评估。以往研究仅涉及受过医学教育的检查人员,主要是物理治疗师。然而,由置身于治疗工作之外的人员进行康复效果评估,可能会减少偏差。因此,如果未经医学训练的检查人员在不影响评估质量的情况下能够被使用,那么或许能以合理的成本产生更好的评估结果,并且在研究中也可能有用。本研究的目的是回答以下问题:对于一套针对长期颈肩痛患者的包含10项测试的方案,未接受过正规医学教育的检查人员能否在不降低质量的情况下使用?这10项测试中有5项要求检查人员在测试过程中牢牢固定住受试者身体那些不应移动的部位。

方法

将经验丰富的物理治疗师(A)执行该测试方案的检查结果与未接受过正规医学教育的研究助理(B)的检查结果进行比较。评估了可靠性,包括评分者间信度和评分者内信度。在评分者间信度研究中,50名参与者(30名患者 + 20名健康受试者)分别由A和B各测试一次。在评分者内信度研究中,20名健康受试者由A或B测试两次。计算单向方差分析组内相关系数(ICC),并使用t检验确定其可能的系统误差。

结果

所有五项无需手动固定的测试都具有可接受的可靠性(ICC > .60且无系统误差迹象)。五项需要固定的测试中只有一项具有可接受的可靠性。这种差异(五项与一项)具有显著性(p = .01)。

结论

对于一套针对长期颈肩痛患者的包含10项测试的方案,至少对于五项无需手动固定的测试,未接受过正规医学教育的检查人员可以在不降低质量的情况下使用。为了使我们的结果更具普遍性,其影响更具探索性,应使用两名或更多有和没有正规医学教育的检查人员进行类似研究,并且评分者内信度研究也应纳入患者并涉及更多参与者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f0f2/1858690/12ecb268c684/1471-2474-8-31-1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验