• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

决策数据:关于在不同日期进行举重训练可重复性的期望。

Decision-Making Data: Expectations for Reproducibility of Lifting on Separate Days.

作者信息

Swift Marcie C, Townsend Robert, Edwards Douglas W, Loudon Janice K

机构信息

Marcie C. Swift, PhD, PT, FAAOMPT, is an associate professor at Rockhurst University. Dr. Swift received her PhD in Rehabilitation Sciences in 1997 from the University of Kansas. She is a graduate of the Kaiser-Hayward Advanced Orthopedic Manual Therapy Fellowship Program in Oakland, CA, and is a fellow in the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists. Robert Townsend, MS, CSCS, CEAS, is a clinical consultant with Bardavon Health Innovations. Previously, Mr. Townsend was an instructor in the School of Health Studies at the University of Memphis as well as Director of Research and Education with WCS Occupational Rehabilitation. Mr. Townsend has been performing functional capacity evaluations since 1997. Douglas W. Edwards, ATC/L, is the VP-Product Research & Clinical Testing for Bardavon Health Innovations. He has degrees from the University of Missouri-Columbia in Business Administration and Exercise Science. He is an NATABOC certified athletic trainer and is certified in multiple FCE Products. He has been treating workers' compensation patients since 1998. Janice K. Loudon, PhD, PT, ATC, SCS, is an associate professor at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, MO. She received her PhD in 1993 in Movement Science from Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Her research is focused on lower extremity pathomechanics and their relationship to athletic injury.

出版信息

Prof Case Manag. 2018 Jul/Aug;23(4):204-212. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000280.

DOI:10.1097/NCM.0000000000000280
PMID:29401178
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5999371/
Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore the difference in maximal lifting capability between 2 modes of lifting (traditional crate and XRTS Lever Arm) over multiple days. The differences in absolute strength values were compared with existing criteria for sincere effort during distraction-based lifting. In addition, rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is presented for the 2 modes of lifting on each day.

PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING

Workers' compensation.

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

Forty-four subjects between the ages of 20 and 44 years participated in this study. Investigators established 1 repetition maximum (RM) for each subject performing the crate lift. Subjects were randomly assigned 5 weights ranging from 10% to 100% of their determined 1RM and asked to give their rating of perceived exertion after each lift. The same procedure was repeated 2-5 days later using the XRTS Lever Arm. Paired t tests and Spearman's correlation coefficient were used for data analysis. Alpha was set at less than .05.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference (p < .04) between maximal lift values for the 2 lifting modes. The percent difference between the modes of lifting was 10.5% ± 6.4%. In addition, there was a positive correlation between the RPE on the 2 modes of lifting (p = .87).

IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is typically ordered after the completion of physical rehabilitation and before releasing a patient to full or modified duty. In addition to assessing the ability to function within normal job demands, an assessment of effort by the participant typically takes place during an FCE. Case managers and physicians are presented with information, allowing them to make comparisons between functional lifting abilities displayed during treatment sessions and the FCE. These comparisons may often take place with the subpoena of medical records and may be discussed during the deposition or trial process. If an FCE takes place at a different facility than the physical therapy or work conditioning treatment, 2 different modes of lifting may take place based on the equipment within each facility. The results of this study indicate that the 2 modes of lifting on separate days meet established criteria for lift comparison testing during FCEs.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在探讨在多天内两种提举方式(传统板条箱提举和XRTS杠杆臂提举)之间最大提举能力的差异。将绝对力量值的差异与基于分心提举时真诚努力的现有标准进行比较。此外,还给出了每天两种提举方式的主观用力程度(RPE)。

主要实践场景

工伤赔偿。

方法与样本

44名年龄在20至44岁之间的受试者参与了本研究。研究人员为每个进行板条箱提举的受试者确定了1次重复最大值(1RM)。受试者被随机分配5个重量,范围从其确定的1RM的10%到100%,并被要求在每次提举后给出主观用力程度评分。2至5天后,使用XRTS杠杆臂重复相同程序。采用配对t检验和Spearman相关系数进行数据分析。显著性水平设定为小于0.05。

结果

两种提举方式的最大提举值之间存在统计学显著差异(p < 0.04)。两种提举方式之间的百分比差异为10.5%±6.4%。此外,两种提举方式的主观用力程度之间存在正相关(p = 0.87)。

对病例管理实践的启示

功能能力评估(FCE)通常在身体康复完成后且在让患者恢复全职或调整后的工作之前进行。除了评估在正常工作要求下的功能能力外,在FCE期间通常还会评估参与者的努力程度。病例管理人员和医生会收到相关信息,使他们能够比较治疗期间和FCE期间所展示的功能性提举能力。这些比较通常可能会在传唤医疗记录时进行,并且可能会在证词或审判过程中进行讨论。如果FCE在与物理治疗或工作适应治疗不同的机构进行,可能会基于每个机构内的设备采用两种不同的提举方式。本研究结果表明,在不同日期的两种提举方式符合FCE期间提举比较测试的既定标准。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/a1db49843253/pcama-23-204-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/69df16b276bb/pcama-23-204-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/a365873e0123/pcama-23-204-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/cc5b0a8cc251/pcama-23-204-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/5e3d36282641/pcama-23-204-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/a1db49843253/pcama-23-204-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/69df16b276bb/pcama-23-204-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/a365873e0123/pcama-23-204-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/cc5b0a8cc251/pcama-23-204-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/5e3d36282641/pcama-23-204-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/009d/5999371/a1db49843253/pcama-23-204-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Decision-Making Data: Expectations for Reproducibility of Lifting on Separate Days.决策数据:关于在不同日期进行举重训练可重复性的期望。
Prof Case Manag. 2018 Jul/Aug;23(4):204-212. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000280.
2
Testing to Identify Submaximal Effort: Lifting to a Perceived 50% Effort vs. an Assigned Submaximal Load.测试识别次最大努力:以感知的 50%努力举重与指定的次最大负荷。
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Aug 1;36(8):2115-2120. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003586. Epub 2020 Apr 10.
3
Accuracy of distraction based lifting criteria for the identification of insincere effort utilizing the under loading method.基于分心的举升标准在利用欠载法识别不真诚努力方面的准确性。
Work. 2016;55(4):873-882. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162450.
4
Heart rate changes in functional capacity evaluations in a workers' compensation population.
Work. 2012;42(2):253-7. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1348.
5
Sensitivity and specificity of the indicators of sincere effort of the EPIC lift capacity test on a previously injured population.EPIC举重能力测试中真诚努力指标对既往受伤人群的敏感性和特异性。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jun 1;25(11):1405-12. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00013.
6
Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders?功能能力评估能否预测上肢疾病的工伤索赔者的恢复情况?
Occup Environ Med. 2006 Jun;63(6):404-10. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020446. Epub 2006 Mar 21.
7
Construct validity of functional capacity evaluation lifting tests in construction workers on sick leave as a result of musculoskeletal disorders.因肌肉骨骼疾病而休病假的建筑工人功能能力评估提升测试的结构效度。
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Feb;90(2):302-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.07.020.
8
Perceived exertion of physical effort for various manual handling tasks.各种体力搬运任务中体力消耗的主观感受。
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983 Mar;44(3):223-8. doi: 10.1080/15298668391404680.
9
Maximum acceptable weight of lift for asymmetric lifting.
Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Jun;96(3 Pt 2):1339-46. doi: 10.2466/pms.2003.96.3c.1339.
10
Improved functional capacity evaluation performance predicts successful return to work one year after completing a functional restoration rehabilitation program.功能能力评估表现的改善预示着在完成功能恢复康复计划一年后成功重返工作岗位。
PM R. 2015 Apr;7(4):365-75. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Oct 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Accuracy of distraction based lifting criteria for the identification of insincere effort utilizing the under loading method.基于分心的举升标准在利用欠载法识别不真诚努力方面的准确性。
Work. 2016;55(4):873-882. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162450.
2
Nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses - United States, 2010.2010年美国与工作相关的非致命伤害和疾病
MMWR Suppl. 2013 Nov 22;62(3):35-40.
3
Heart rate changes in functional capacity evaluations in a workers' compensation population.
Work. 2012;42(2):253-7. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1348.
4
Comparison of two methods for interpreting lifting performance during functional capacity evaluation.两种方法在功能能力评估中解读举重表现的比较。
Phys Ther. 2012 Sep;92(9):1130-40. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110473. Epub 2012 May 31.
5
Accuracy of visual estimation in classifying effort during a lifting task.在举重任务中视觉评估分类用力的准确性。
Work. 2011;40(4):445-57. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1256.
6
Simultaneous bilateral hand strength testing in a client population, Part II: Relationship to a distraction-based lifting evaluation.在客户群体中进行双侧同时手部力量测试,第二部分:与基于分心的提举评估的关系。
Work. 2010;37(4):395-403. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2010-1093.
7
Isometric strength assessment, Part II: Static testing does not accurately classify validity of effort.
Work. 2010;37(4):387-94. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2010-1092.
8
Sensitivity and specificity of the blankenship FCE system's indicators of submaximal effort.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;37(4):161-8. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2261.
9
Psychosocial aspects of injured workers' returning to work (RTW) in Hong Kong.香港工伤员工重返工作岗位的社会心理因素
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Jun;17(2):279-88. doi: 10.1007/s10926-007-9075-2.
10
Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders?功能能力评估能否预测上肢疾病的工伤索赔者的恢复情况?
Occup Environ Med. 2006 Jun;63(6):404-10. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020446. Epub 2006 Mar 21.