Goonetilleke A, Modarres-Sadeghi H, Guiloff R J
Regional Neurosciences Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Mar;57(3):326-32. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.57.3.326.
A spring-loaded device that "breaks" at preset forces was used to assess readings obtained by hand-held dynamometry by three raters with varying experience in the method. Overall accuracy (3%), but not reproducibility or variability, was improved by greater experience. Readings obtained jointly by three raters had 53% greater variability than those obtained by a single rater. Nine muscle groups in 19 patients with motor neuron disease were assessed at 10 sessions (three replications per session) over six days by the experienced rater. Muscle force was expressed relative to that of 22 matched normal controls. The reproducibility was good with a mean % difference of 13.2 and repeatability coefficient of 2.17 kg-force for readings six days apart; the overall correlation coefficient was 0.98. The mean coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 readings was 9.9%. The poorer reproducibility and greater variability seen in clinically weaker muscles may account for differences in patients with bulbar palsy and classical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; the degree of spasticity had no effect. The rater was estimated to contribute 37% of the total variability when testing patients. The use of a composite score by combining normalised dynamometry readings of eight limb muscles improved mean % difference to 6.7 and mean CV to 5.8%. The reproducibility and variability of hand-held dynamometry readings obtained by a single rater compare well with those of fixed devices. Readings from single raters, irrespective of experience, have similar reproducibility and variability. If, however, multiple raters are used in longitudinal assessments of individual patients, as occurs in clinical trials, the variability of their combined readings should be estimated when calculating the same size required.
一种在预设力时“断裂”的弹簧加载装置被用于评估由三位对该方法经验各异的评估者通过手持式测力计获得的读数。经验越丰富,总体准确性(3%)有所提高,但可重复性或变异性并无改善。三位评估者共同获得的读数的变异性比单一评估者获得的读数大53%。经验丰富的评估者在六天内对19例运动神经元病患者的九个肌肉群进行了10次评估(每次评估重复三次)。肌肉力量相对于22名匹配的正常对照者的力量来表示。相隔六天的读数的可重复性良好,平均差异百分比为13.2,重复性系数为2.17千克力;总体相关系数为0.98。10次读数的平均变异系数(CV)为9.9%。临床上较弱的肌肉中观察到的可重复性较差和变异性较大,可能解释了延髓麻痹和经典肌萎缩侧索硬化症患者之间的差异;痉挛程度没有影响。据估计,在测试患者时,评估者对总变异性的贡献为37%。通过组合八个肢体肌肉的标准化测力计读数使用综合评分,可将平均差异百分比提高到6.7,平均CV提高到5.8%。单一评估者获得的手持式测力计读数的可重复性和变异性与固定装置的相当。无论经验如何,单一评估者的读数具有相似的可重复性和变异性。然而,如果在对个体患者的纵向评估中使用多个评估者,如在临床试验中那样,在计算所需样本量时应估计他们组合读数的变异性。