Suppr超能文献

落地距离对落地错误评分系统评分的临床意义。

Clinical Implications of Landing Distance on Landing Error Scoring System Scores.

机构信息

Division of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, Adams Centre for High Performance, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

出版信息

J Athl Train. 2021 Jun 1;56(6):572-577. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-068-20.

Abstract

CONTEXT

The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) screens for risk of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury. The LESS requires individuals to jump forward from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of their body height. However, different landing distances have been cited in the scientific literature.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether landing distance influences LESS outcomes.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Seventy young active individuals (34 males, 36 females).

INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed 3 × 30-cm jump-landing tasks under 2 landing conditions in randomized order: (1) 50% of body height (d50%), (2) self-selected distance (dss).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Mean LESS scores, proportions of individuals categorized at high (LESS: ≥ 5 errors) and low (LESS: < 5 errors) injury risk, and landing distances were compared between conditions using generalized estimating equations. Consistency of risk categorization was examined using odds ratios (ORs) and McNemar tests. McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the occurrence of specific LESS errors.

RESULTS

Participants landed closer to the box under the dss condition (difference = -23.28 [95% CI = -20.73, -25.81]%, P < .001). Group mean LESS scores (difference = -0.01 [95% CI = -0.59, 0.57] error, P = .969) and risk categorization (OR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.47, 1.88], P = .859) were similar between conditions. However, individual-level risk categorization was inconsistent in 33% of participants, as was the occurrence of specific errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Using dss during the LESS might lead to different LESS errors and risk categorizations at an individual level than using d50%. Given that individual LESS scores are of primary interest in clinical and sport settings and the injury-risk threshold has not been validated for dss, we recommend use of the original LESS protocol. When only group mean LESS scores or proportions of at-risk individuals are of interest, using dss is feasible to facilitate the testing of large cohorts.

摘要

背景

着陆错误评分系统(LESS)可筛查非接触性前交叉韧带损伤的风险。LESS 要求个体从 30 厘米高的箱子上向前跳跃,距离为其身高的 50%。然而,科学文献中已经引用了不同的着陆距离。

目的

探讨着陆距离是否会影响 LESS 的结果。

设计

横断面研究。

地点

实验室。

参与者或其他参与者

70 名年轻活跃的个体(34 名男性,36 名女性)。

干预措施

参与者在两种随机排列的着陆条件下进行了 3 次 30 厘米高的跳-着陆任务:(1)身高的 50%(d50%),(2)自我选择的距离(dss)。

主要观察指标

在两种条件下,使用广义估计方程比较平均 LESS 评分、高(LESS:≥5 个错误)和低(LESS:<5 个错误)风险个体的比例,以及着陆距离。使用优势比(OR)和 McNemar 检验检查风险分类的一致性。使用 McNemar 和 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较特定 LESS 错误的发生情况。

结果

参与者在 dss 条件下着陆更接近箱子(差值=-23.28%[95%CI=-20.73%,-25.81%],P<0.001)。组平均 LESS 评分(差值=-0.01[95%CI=-0.59,0.57]个错误,P=0.969)和风险分类(OR=0.94[95%CI=0.47,1.88],P=0.859)在两种条件下相似。然而,33%的参与者在个体水平上的风险分类不一致,特定错误的发生情况也是如此。

结论

在 LESS 中使用 dss 可能会导致与使用 d50%相比,在个体水平上出现不同的 LESS 错误和风险分类。鉴于个体 LESS 评分是临床和运动环境中主要关注的指标,且 dss 的损伤风险阈值尚未得到验证,我们建议使用原始的 LESS 方案。当仅对组平均 LESS 评分或处于风险中的个体比例感兴趣时,使用 dss 是可行的,可以方便地对大量队列进行测试。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验