Department of Physical Therapy, Saitama Prefectural University, Koshigaya, Japan.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Physiother Theory Pract. 2021 May;37(5):559-582. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2019.1639868. Epub 2019 Jul 18.
: There is no robust evidence on the contribution of reduced hamstring flexibility to the development of low back pain (LBP) in cohort studies.: To investigate whether individuals with LBP have impaired hamstring flexibility and stiffness and what measures have been used to compare hamstring flexibility and stiffness between individuals with and without LBP.: A systematic literature search was undertaken in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases from inception to April 2018. The GRADE system was used to determine the quality of evidence for each measure evaluated in meta-analysis.: Respectively, seventeen and two studies having acceptable methodological quality were analyzed with regard to hamstring flexibility and stiffness. Four measures were identified for hamstring flexibility and five for stiffness. Meta-analyses were undertaken in straight leg raising (SLR), sit and reach and knee extension in 90° hip flexion for hamstring flexibility and for hamstring stiffness measures of stiffness at 50° SLR and gradient of stiffness from 20° to 50° SLR (M). Significantly reduced hamstring flexibility or increased stiffness ( < .05) was detected in SLR, 90/90 knee extension and M However, the validity of measures for hamstring flexibility was problematic and GRADE scores for all measures in the meta-analyses were very low.: There have been four measures for hamstring flexibility and five for stiffness to evaluate individuals with and without LBP. It was impossible to conclude whether individuals with LBP have impaired hamstring flexibility and stiffness due to very low quality of evidence for meta-analyses.
没有确凿的证据表明腘绳肌柔韧性降低与队列研究中的腰痛（LBP）的发展有关。
为了调查是否患有 LBP 的个体存在腘绳肌柔韧性和僵硬性受损的情况，以及使用了哪些措施来比较患有和不患有 LBP 的个体之间的腘绳肌柔韧性和僵硬性。
系统地检索了 PubMed、EMBASE、MEDLINE、CINAHL、SCOPUS 和 Cochrane 数据库，检索时间从建库至 2018 年 4 月。使用 GRADE 系统评估了每个纳入 meta 分析的测量方法的证据质量。
分别对 17 项和 2 项具有可接受的方法学质量的研究进行了分析，以评估腘绳肌的柔韧性和僵硬性。确定了 4 项腘绳肌柔韧性测量方法和 5 项腘绳肌僵硬性测量方法。在直腿抬高（SLR）、坐立位前伸和 90°髋关节屈曲下的膝关节伸展中进行了 SLR、90/90 膝关节伸展和 M 的腘绳肌柔韧性的 meta 分析，以及在 50° SLR 下的僵硬度和从 20°到 50° SLR 的僵硬度梯度（M）的腘绳肌僵硬性测量方法的 meta 分析。在 SLR、90/90 膝关节伸展和 M 中，发现了显著降低的腘绳肌柔韧性或增加的僵硬度（<0.05）。
然而，腘绳肌柔韧性测量方法的有效性存在问题，并且 meta 分析中所有测量方法的 GRADE 评分都非常低。
对于评估患有和不患有 LBP 的个体，已经有 4 项腘绳肌柔韧性测量方法和 5 项腘绳肌僵硬性测量方法。由于 meta 分析的证据质量非常低，因此无法得出患有 LBP 的个体是否存在腘绳肌柔韧性和僵硬性受损的结论。
