两种方法在估计肩部次最大等长收缩时目标肌肉力量的准确性
Accuracy of Two Methods in Estimating Target Muscle Force During Shoulder Submaximal Isometric Contractions.
作者信息
Griech Sean F, Karagiannopoulos Christos
机构信息
Doctor of Physical Therapy Program DeSales University.
出版信息
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2025 Jan 2;20(1):79-86. doi: 10.26603/001c.127141. eCollection 2025.
BACKGROUND
Submaximal isometric exercises are used for pain control and neuromuscular facilitation. Typically, an ipsilateral maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) is used as a reference; however, when this is not clinically feasible, an alternative must be considered. Two options are (1) the no reference (NR) method (submaximal contraction at a self-perceived effort level without reference) and (2) the reciprocal reference (RR) method (MVIC on the contralateral side serves as a reference for a submaximal effort-level on the ipsilateral side). No research evidence exists as to which alternative method is more accurate at the shoulder.
PURPOSE
To determine the accuracy of the NR and RR methods in estimating target muscle force during shoulder ER and IR submaximal isometric contractions among healthy adults.
STUDY DESIGN
Observational cross-sectional.
METHODS
Isometric shoulder force was measured via a hand-held dynamometer on 48 healthy participants (36 females and 12 males) mean age of 27.4 ±1.6 years. Both methods (NR and RR), direction of force (IR and ER), and starting test-side (right or left) were randomized. RR testing involved a contralateral MVIC (reference) prior to a 50% submaximal contraction. NR testing entailed a 50% submaximal contraction with no prior reference MVIC.
RESULTS
Actual submaximal efforts were compared to MVIC-based estimated submaximal efforts. Significant moderate - good correlations existed for both the RR (r = 0.691) and NR (r = 0.620) methods, regardless of test-side or shoulder motion. Significant moderate - good correlations were found between both methods for both ER [RR (r = 0.717) and NR (r = 0.614)] and IR [RR (r = 0.669) and NR (r = 0.628)].
CONCLUSION
Both methods had moderate - good accuracy levels and were not influenced by the test side or direction of force. Either method (RR or NR) can be equally useful for shoulder isometric exercise prescription when an ipsilateral reference cannot be determined.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
背景
次最大等长运动可用于控制疼痛和促进神经肌肉功能。通常，同侧最大自主等长收缩（MVIC）被用作参考；然而，当这在临床上不可行时，就必须考虑其他方法。有两种选择：（1）无参考（NR）方法（在自我感知的用力水平下进行次最大收缩，无参考）和（2）相互参考（RR）方法（对侧的MVIC作为同侧次最大用力水平的参考）。关于哪种替代方法在肩部更准确，尚无研究证据。
目的
确定NR和RR方法在估计健康成年人肩部外旋（ER）和内旋（IR）次最大等长收缩期间目标肌肉力量方面的准确性。
研究设计
观察性横断面研究。
方法
通过手持测力计对48名健康参与者（36名女性和12名男性）进行等长肩部力量测量，平均年龄为27.4±1.6岁。两种方法（NR和RR）、力量方向（IR和ER）以及起始测试侧（右侧或左侧）均随机安排。RR测试在50%次最大收缩之前进行对侧MVIC（参考）。NR测试进行50%次最大收缩，无先前的参考MVIC。
结果
将实际次最大用力与基于MVIC估计的次最大用力进行比较。无论测试侧或肩部运动如何，RR方法（r = 0.691）和NR方法（r = 0.620）均存在显著的中度至良好相关性。对于ER [RR（r = 0.717）和NR（r = 0.614）]和IR [RR（r = 0.669）和NR（r = 0.628）]，两种方法之间均存在显著的中度至良好相关性。
结论
两种方法的准确性均为中度至良好，且不受测试侧或力量方向的影响。当无法确定同侧参考时，两种方法（RR或NR）在肩部等长运动处方中同样有用。
证据水平
3级。
Zotero 插件