Suppr超能文献

慢性下背痛患者压力疼痛阈和机械时间总和的 session 内复测信度。

Within-Session Test-Retest Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold and Mechanical Temporal Summation in Chronic Low Back Pain.

机构信息

Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Réadaptation et Intégration Sociale (Cirris), Université Laval, Quebec.

Research Unit in Sport and Physical Activity (CIDAF), Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

出版信息

Clin J Pain. 2023 May 1;39(5):217-225. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001106.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the absolute and relative within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) at the low back and the forearm in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to test the impact of different sequences of measurements on reliability metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight adults with CLBP were recruited. Relative (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and coefficient of variation) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement and minimal detectable changes) were quantified at 4 sites (back: sacrum and lumbar erector spinae; wrist: hand dorsum and wrist flexors) for PPT and 2 sites (hand and low back) for TSP, for various sequences of measurements.

RESULTS

Systematic differences were found between within test and retest for most PPT sequences at the lumbar erector spinae site and 1 TSP sequence (1-2-3) at back and hand sites, precluding reliability analyses for these data. Within-session PPT relative reliability was excellent at low back (ICC = 0.83 to 0.94) and wrist (ICC = 0.88 to 0.97) sites, whereas TSP showed good to excellent reliability at hand (ICC = 0.80 to 0.90) and low back (ICC = 0.73 to 0.89). In general, 2 and 3 measurements optimized absolute and relative reliability for TSP and PPT, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Within-session reliability was generally excellent for PPT and TSP at the low back and hand sites among individuals with CLBP. We recommend using 3 measurements for PPT and 2 for TSP to optimize reliability. Caution is recommended when testing PPT of the painful lower back area since a systematic difference was present between the test and retest.

摘要

目的

确定慢性下背痛(CLBP)患者下背部和前臂的压力疼痛阈值(PPT)和疼痛时间总和(TSP)的绝对和相对测试-重测信度,并测试不同测量顺序对可靠性指标的影响。

材料和方法

招募了 28 名患有 CLBP 的成年人。在 4 个部位(背部:骶骨和腰椎竖脊肌;手腕:手背部和手腕屈肌)和 2 个部位(手部和下背部)测量 PPT 和 TSP,评估各部位的相对(组内相关系数[ICC]和变异系数)和绝对可靠性(测量误差和最小可检测变化),并评估不同的测量顺序。

结果

大多数 PPT 序列在腰椎竖脊肌部位和 1 个 TSP 序列(1-2-3)在背部和手部出现测试内和重测之间的系统差异,因此无法对这些数据进行可靠性分析。在低背部(ICC = 0.83 至 0.94)和手腕(ICC = 0.88 至 0.97)部位,PPT 的相对可靠性非常好,而 TSP 在手部(ICC = 0.80 至 0.90)和低背部(ICC = 0.73 至 0.89)部位表现出良好至非常好的可靠性。一般来说,TSP 和 PPT 的 2 次和 3 次测量分别优化了绝对和相对可靠性。

讨论

在 CLBP 患者中,下背部和手部的 PPT 和 TSP 的测试-重测信度一般都非常好。我们建议使用 3 次测量 PPT 和 2 次测量 TSP 以优化可靠性。在测试疼痛的下背部区域的 PPT 时需要谨慎,因为在测试和重测之间存在系统差异。

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