Slaboda Jill C, Boston J Robert, Rudy Thomas E, Lieber Susan J
Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Aug;89(8):1542-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.01.016.
To compare self-reported measures of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) patients who were assigned to 2 subgroups based on their lifting patterns performed during a repetitive lifting task.
Cross-sectional study.
Research laboratory
CLBP subjects (n=81) and pain-free controls (n=53).
Not applicable.
Measures of lifting patterns and self-reported disability, pain, and psychosocial aspects.
Two CLBP subgroups were found: 1 group that lifts similarly to control subjects (n=35) and 1 group that lifts very differently from controls (n=46). The CLBP group that lifted differently than controls reported higher pain intensity (P=.005), higher pain severity (P=.025), and lower self-efficacy (P=.013) than the CLBP group that lifted similarly to controls.
A classification system based on lifting patterns identified 2 CLBP subgroups that were significantly different on lifting and self-reported measures, indicating the importance of physical functioning measures in classification systems.
比较慢性下背痛（CLBP）患者根据其在重复性提举任务中的提举模式被分为两个亚组后的自我报告测量结果。
横断面研究。
研究实验室
CLBP受试者（n = 81）和无疼痛对照组（n = 53）。
不适用。
提举模式测量以及自我报告的残疾、疼痛和心理社会方面的情况。
发现了两个CLBP亚组：一组提举方式与对照组相似（n = 35），另一组提举方式与对照组差异很大（n = 46）。与对照组提举方式不同的CLBP组报告的疼痛强度更高（P = .005）、疼痛严重程度更高（P = .025），自我效能更低（P = .013），而与对照组提举方式相似的CLBP组则不然。
基于提举模式的分类系统识别出两个CLBP亚组，它们在提举和自我报告测量方面存在显著差异，表明身体功能测量在分类系统中的重要性。
