Blikman Lyan J, van Meeteren Jetty, Horemans Herwin L, Kortenhorst Ilse C, Beckerman Heleen, Stam Henk J, Bussmann Johannes B
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Jan;96(1):24-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.08.023. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
To study physical behavior in detail in fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis (MS).
Case-control explorative study.
Outpatient rehabilitation department and participants' daily environment.
Fatigued persons with MS (n=23) were selected from a randomized controlled trial. Cases were matched by age and sex to healthy, nonfatigued controls (n=23). Eligible persons with MS were severely fatigued (Checklist Individual Strength fatigue domain mean score, 43.2±6.6) and ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale mean score, 2.5±1.5).
Not applicable.
Measurements were performed using an accelerometer over 7 days. Outcomes included the following: amount of physical activity expressed in counts per day, counts per minute (CPM), and counts per day period (morning, afternoon, evening); duration of activity intensity categories (sedentary, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA]); and distribution of MVPA and sedentary periods over the day.
Persons with MS had fewer counts per day (mean difference, -156×10(3); 95% confidence interval [CI], -273×10(3) to -39×10(3); P=.010), had fewer CPM (mean difference, -135; 95% CI, -256 to -14; P=.030), and were less physically active in the morning (mean difference, -200; 95% CI, -389 to -11; P=.039) and evening (mean difference, -175; 95% CI, -336 to -14; P=.034) than controls. Persons with MS spent a higher percentage of their time sedentary (mean difference, 5.6; 95% CI, .1-11.1; P=.045) and spent less time at the higher MVPA intensity (mean difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.09; P=.042). They had fewer MVPA periods (mean difference, 29; 95% CI, -56.2 to -2.6; P=.032) and a different distribution of sedentary (mean difference, .033; 95% CI, .002 to .064; P=.039) and MVPA periods (mean difference, -.08; 95% CI, -.15 to -.01; P=.023).
Detailed analyses of physical behavior showed that ambulatory fatigued persons with MS do differ from healthy controls not only in physical activity level, but also in other physical behavior dimensions (eg, day patterns, intensity, distribution).
详细研究多发性硬化症（MS）疲劳患者的身体行为。
病例对照探索性研究。
门诊康复科及参与者的日常环境。
从一项随机对照试验中选取MS疲劳患者（n = 23）。病例按年龄和性别与健康、无疲劳的对照者（n = 23）匹配。符合条件的MS患者严重疲劳（个体力量检查表疲劳领域平均得分，43.2±6.6）且可独立行走（扩展残疾状态量表平均得分，2.5±1.5）。
不适用。
使用加速度计进行为期7天的测量。结果包括：以每天计数、每分钟计数（CPM）和每天时间段（上午、下午、晚上）表示的身体活动量；活动强度类别（久坐、轻度身体活动、中度至剧烈身体活动[MVPA]）的持续时间；以及MVPA和久坐时间段在一天中的分布。
MS患者每天的计数较少（平均差值，-156×10³；95%置信区间[CI]，-273×10³至-39×10³；P = 0.010），CPM较少（平均差值，-135；95% CI，-256至-14；P = 0.030），且上午（平均差值，-200；95% CI，-389至-11；P = 0.039）和晚上（平均差值，-175；95% CI，-336至-14；P = 0.034）的身体活动比对照组少。MS患者久坐时间的百分比更高（平均差值，5.6；95% CI，0.1 - 11.1；P = 0.045），在较高MVPA强度下花费的时间更少（平均差值，-2.4；95% CI，-4.7至-0.09；P = 0.042）。他们的MVPA时间段较少（平均差值，29；95% CI，-56.2至-2.6；P = 0.032），久坐（平均差值，0.033；95% CI，0.002至0.064；P = 0.039）和MVPA时间段的分布也不同（平均差值，-0.08；95% CI，-0.15至-0.01；P = 0.023）。
对身体行为的详细分析表明，可独立行走的MS疲劳患者不仅在身体活动水平上与健康对照者不同，在其他身体行为维度（如日模式、强度、分布）上也存在差异。
