OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of 3 different back test protocols in measuring differences in strength and fatigue between subjects with and without chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Descriptive study using a repeated-measures design. SETTING: A research laboratory within a rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen healthy subjects and 13 subjects with CLBP were assessed in a single session to compare the 3 protocols. The protocols were an upright position test (UPP), a semicrouched lifting test (LIF), and the Sorensen fatigue test. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Moments of force and surface electromyography were recorded bilaterally from 4 homologous back muscles while the subjects performed static trunk extension efforts for each protocol. Fatigue was quantified by the slopes of the linear regression of electromyography time-series. RESULTS: The back muscle fatigue and strength scores did not differ significantly for the 2 subject groups for any of the 3 protocols. The electromyography fatigue indices revealed that the Sorensen fatigue test and UPP produced more fatigue in the back muscles than the LIF. CONCLUSIONS: It was impossible to specify which protocol is more sensitive to low back status because no between-group difference was observed for any of the 3 tests.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of 3 different back test protocols in measuring differences in strength and fatigue between subjects with and without chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Descriptive study using a repeated-measures design. SETTING: A research laboratory within a rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen healthy subjects and 13 subjects with CLBP were assessed in a single session to compare the 3 protocols. The protocols were an upright position test (UPP), a semicrouched lifting test (LIF), and the Sorensen fatigue test. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Moments of force and surface electromyography were recorded bilaterally from 4 homologous back muscles while the subjects performed static trunk extension efforts for each protocol. Fatigue was quantified by the slopes of the linear regression of electromyography time-series. RESULTS: The back muscle fatigue and strength scores did not differ significantly for the 2 subject groups for any of the 3 protocols. The electromyography fatigue indices revealed that the Sorensen fatigue test and UPP produced more fatigue in the back muscles than the LIF. CONCLUSIONS: It was impossible to specify which protocol is more sensitive to low back status because no between-group difference was observed for any of the 3 tests.
Authors: Tsipora Mankovsky-Arnold; Timothy H Wideman; Pascal Thibault; Christian Larivière; Pierre Rainville; Michael J L Sullivan Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2017-09
Authors: Leandro A Sturion; Alexandre H Nowotny; Fabrice Barillec; Gilles Barette; Gabriela K Santos; Fellipe A Teixeira; Karen P Fernandes; Rubens da Silva Journal: S Afr J Physiother Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Thomas Kienbacher; Richard Habenicht; Christian Starek; Patrick Mair; Markus Wolf; Birgit Paul; Sara Riegler; Josef Kollmitzer; Gerold Ebenbichler Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 4.262