Kawchuk G, Herzog W
Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 Jan;19(1):13-8.
To assess the reliability and accuracy of a new method of tissue stiffness (TS) assessment, automated stiffness assessment (ASA), and compare these findings with previously published results of manual stiffness assessment (MSA).
Descriptive study.
Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary.
ASA was used to collect stiffness measurements from three foam surfaces of different stiffness characteristics and two control surfaces. Control surface one (CS1) was rigid and could not be displaced; control surface two (CS2) was rigid but could be displaced. The three foam surfaces and CS1 had been previously tested using MSA.
Reliability and accuracy were assessed for each separate electronic component by root mean square analysis (RMS) and linear regression/calibration curves, respectively. The reliability of ASA (all electronic components working in concert) was determined by computing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); the accuracy of ASA was assessed by studying relative deformations of the control surfaces.
Each electronic component used in ASA was found to have a calculated RMS of less than 0.03% of the mean, whereas the R2-value for any of these separate components was never lower than 0.99. For ASA, the median ICC for all surfaces tested was 0.99. The mean relative deformation collected from CS1 was 0.34 +/- mm at 44.0 N of input force whereas the mean relative deformation collected from CS2 was 0.008 +/- 0.013 mm. The median ICC for MSA found in a previous investigation was 0.005 and the mean displacement recorded from the control surface with MSA was 1.28 +/- 0.57 mm at 49.10 N.
ASA seems to be extremely reliable and accurate. When ASA and MSA were used to assess identical test surfaces, the results of MSA were poor when compared with those obtained by ASA; we therefore suggest that conclusions reached in prior research employing MSA should be considered with caution. It is our recommendation that remotely controlled, electronic signal gathering procedures such as ASA be the method of choice when assessing TS.
评估一种新的组织硬度（TS）评估方法——自动硬度评估（ASA）的可靠性和准确性，并将这些结果与先前发表的手动硬度评估（MSA）结果进行比较。
描述性研究。
卡尔加里大学人体性能实验室。
使用ASA从三个具有不同硬度特征的泡沫表面和两个对照表面收集硬度测量值。对照表面1（CS1）是刚性的，不能被位移；对照表面2（CS2）是刚性的但可以被位移。这三个泡沫表面和CS1之前已使用MSA进行过测试。
分别通过均方根分析（RMS）和线性回归/校准曲线评估每个单独电子组件的可靠性和准确性。通过计算组内相关系数（ICC）确定ASA（所有电子组件协同工作）的可靠性；通过研究对照表面的相对变形评估ASA的准确性。
发现ASA中使用的每个电子组件的计算RMS均小于平均值的0.03%，而这些单独组件中任何一个的R2值均不低于0.99。对于ASA，所有测试表面的中位ICC为0.99。在44.0 N的输入力下，从CS1收集的平均相对变形为0.34±mm，而从CS2收集的平均相对变形为0.008±0.013 mm。先前一项调查中发现MSA的中位ICC为0.005，在49.10 N时，用MSA从对照表面记录的平均位移为1.28±0.57 mm。
ASA似乎极其可靠和准确。当使用ASA和MSA评估相同的测试表面时，与ASA获得的结果相比，MSA的结果较差；因此，我们建议应谨慎考虑先前采用MSA的研究得出的结论。我们建议在评估TS时，应选择诸如ASA之类的远程控制电子信号采集程序。
