Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Physiotherapy Research Group, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway.
Phys Ther. 2011 Mar;91(3):404-15. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100016. Epub 2011 Jan 27.
Few studies have examined the responsiveness of physical tests.
The purpose of this study was to explore the responsiveness of 10 physical tests used for patients with back pain in order to illuminate the significance of changes in scores.
Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs within a prospective cohort study were applied.
Distribution-based and anchor-based methods were used. Ninety-eight patients (18-65 years of age) with long-lasting back pain were recruited consecutively at an outpatient spine clinic. Measurements The participants were assessed using 10 physical tests and 2 questionnaires (Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at inclusion and after rehabilitation. Six predefined hypotheses for each test were examined regarding the association between changes in scores on the physical tests and the self-report measures of functioning and regarding the relationship of changes in scores on the physical tests and external anchors of important change.
Five physical tests demonstrated responsiveness by both distribution-based and anchor-based methods: spondylometry, lateral flexion test, fingertip-to-floor test, lift test, and Back Performance Scale (4 hypotheses confirmed). The minimal important change values were all within the range of the smallest detectable change for individual patients. Responsiveness by distribution-based methods only (3 hypotheses confirmed) was shown for the Biering-Sørensen test and the loaded reach test, whereas little evidence of responsiveness (1 hypothesis confirmed) was shown for the Global Physiotherapy Examination flexibility subscale, the Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, and the 15-m (50-ft) walk test. Limitations The smallest detectable change values were examined in a small sample of patients and need further exploration.
Responsiveness varied among the 10 physical tests.
很少有研究检查过物理测试的反应能力。
本研究旨在探讨 10 种用于腰痛患者的物理测试的反应能力，以阐明评分变化的意义。
在前瞻性队列研究中应用了横断面和纵向设计。
使用基于分布和基于锚定的方法。98 名（18-65 岁）患有长期腰痛的患者连续在门诊脊柱诊所招募。测量：在纳入和康复后，使用 10 项物理测试和 2 份问卷（汉诺威功能能力问卷和 Roland-Morris 残疾问卷）对参与者进行评估。针对每个测试，检验了 6 个关于物理测试评分变化与功能自评量表之间的关联的预设假设，以及物理测试评分变化与重要变化的外部锚点之间的关系。
5 项物理测试通过基于分布和基于锚定的方法均表现出反应能力：脊柱测量法、侧屈试验、指尖触地试验、举物试验和背部表现量表（4 个假设得到证实）。最小重要变化值均在个体患者最小可检测变化范围内。基于分布的方法仅显示 Biering-Sørensen 测试和负重伸展测试具有反应能力（3 个假设得到证实），而全球物理治疗检查柔韧性亚量表、渐进等速举重评估和 15 米（50 英尺）步行测试显示出的反应能力较弱（1 个假设得到证实）。局限性：最小可检测变化值是在一小部分患者样本中检查的，需要进一步探讨。
10 种物理测试的反应能力存在差异。
