...
首页> 外文期刊>Physiotherapy >Measurement of range of movement in the lumbar spine-what methods are valid? A systematic review
【24h】

Measurement of range of movement in the lumbar spine-what methods are valid? A systematic review

机译:测量腰椎活动范围的方法有效吗?系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives To examine the validity of low-tech procedures used in routine clinical practice to determine the range of movement of the lumbar spine in comparison to the 'gold' standard of measurement. Data sources AMED, CINAHL, Embase, OVID Medline, The Cochrane Library, Spine and other relevant journals. Review methods A search of electronic databases (January 2006) was complemented by hand searching reference lists of identified studies and journals, plus consultation with recognised experts to identify English language studies designed to evaluate the validity of low-tech procedures used to determine range of movement of the lumbar spine in adult human subjects presenting with non-specific low back pain. Results Four relevant studies were identified for analysis. Three studies investigated the use of the double-inclinometer method and one study investigated the modified-modified Schober test. The appraisal was performed using the modified QUADAS tool. The studies were considered heterogeneous and thus qualitative analysis was undertaken, This indicated limited positive evidence that the double-inclinometer method is valid for measuring total lumbar range of movement, conflicting evidence for double-inclinometer measurement of lumbar flexion range, limited evidence that the modified-modified Schober test is not valid for measurement of lumbar flexion range and limited evidence that the double-inclinometer method is not valid for measuring lumbar extension range. Conclusion There is little evidence to support the use of current methods of range of movement measurement in the lumbar spine. If range of movement is to continue to be used during routine clinical practice to assess spinal function, degree of impairment and response to therapeutic input there is a need for scientific evidence on the validity of these procedures.
机译:目的检验常规临床实践中用于确定腰椎活动范围与“黄金”测量标准相比的低技术程序的有效性。数据来源为AMED,CINAHL,Embase,OVID Medline,Cochrane图书馆,Spine和其他相关期刊。审查方法对电子数据库的搜索(2006年1月)得到了补充,其中包括手工搜索已查明研究和期刊的参考清单,并与知名专家进行磋商,以鉴定旨在评估用于确定活动范围的低技术程序的有效性的英语研究。成年受试者腰椎的非特异性腰痛。结果确定了四项相关研究进行分析。三项研究调查了双倾角法的使用,一项研究调查了修改后的改进的Schober测试。使用改良的QUADAS工具进行评估。这些研究被认为是异质性的,因此进行了定性分析。这表明有限的积极证据表明双倾角法可用于测量整个腰部运动范围,而与之相反的证据表明双倾角法可用于测量腰部屈曲范围,有限的证据表明改良改良的Schober测试不适用于测量腰部屈曲范围,并且有限的证据表明双倾角法不适用于测量腰部伸展范围。结论几乎没有证据支持在腰椎中使用当前的运动范围测量方法。如果在常规临床实践中继续使用运动范围来评估脊柱功能,损伤程度和对治疗输入的反应,则需要有关这些程序有效性的科学证据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号