School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal.
School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; CINTESIS.UA, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal.
PM R. 2018 Feb;10(2):183-193. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.06.024. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
A variety of tests have been proposed to measure the performance of neck flexor muscles, but head-to-head comparisons hardly have been documented.
To compare reliability indexes, construct validity, and ability to discriminate between individuals with and without neck pain of 4 muscle tests (deep neck flexors endurance test [DNFET]; 2 variations of the craniocervical flexion test [CCFT1 and CCFT2]; and dynamometry).
Reliability and validity study.
General community.
A total of 66 participants, 33 with chronic idiopathic neck pain (mean ± standard deviation pain intensity: 3.2 ± 1.9) and 33 without neck pain, from the general population.
METHODS/MAIN OUTCOME: Neck muscle functioning was assessed with the CCFT1, the CCFT2, the DNFET, and dynamometry on 2 separate sessions. Participants with neck pain also were assessed for pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear of movement.
Relative reliability of all tests was at least moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.62), whereas measurement error was high, particularly for the DNFET (95% minimum detectable change ≥ 23.00 seconds). All tests showed moderate correlation (r ≥ 0.3) with at least 2 pain-related measures and moderate-to-strong correlations with each other. Principal component analysis retained 2 factors explaining 68%-73% of the variance of the 4 muscle tests. Significant differences between groups were found for the DNFET and dynamometry (P < .05).
The reliability indexes suggest that the DNFET and the CCFT may be more appropriate for group comparisons than for individual comparisons. The 4 tests seem to have construct validity, but they also seem to measure slightly different constructs.
III.
有多种测试方法被提出用于测量颈屈肌的性能,但很少有对头对头比较的记录。
比较 4 种肌肉测试(深层颈屈肌耐力测试[DNFET];颈椎屈曲测试的 2 种变体[CCFT1 和 CCFT2];和测力)的可靠性指标、结构有效性和区分有和无颈痛个体的能力。
可靠性和有效性研究。
一般社区。
共有 66 名参与者,33 名患有慢性特发性颈痛(平均±标准差疼痛强度:3.2±1.9),33 名无颈痛,来自一般人群。
方法/主要结果:在 2 次单独的测试中,使用 CCFT1、CCFT2、DNFET 和测力评估颈肌功能。颈痛患者还评估了疼痛强度、残疾、疼痛灾难化和运动恐惧。
所有测试的相对可靠性至少为中度(组内相关系数≥0.62),而测量误差较高,特别是 DNFET(95%最小可检测变化≥23.00 秒)。所有测试与至少 2 个与疼痛相关的测量指标呈中度相关(r≥0.3),并与彼此呈中度至强相关。主成分分析保留了 2 个因子,解释了 4 个肌肉测试的 68%-73%的方差。DNFET 和测力在组间存在显著差异(P<0.05)。
可靠性指标表明,DNFET 和 CCFT 可能更适合组间比较,而不是个体比较。这 4 种测试似乎具有结构有效性,但它们似乎也测量了略有不同的结构。
III 级。