N Best1,2, M Nisser3, D Loudovici-Krug3,4. 1. Institut für Physiotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Deutschland. norman.best@med.uni-jena.de. 2. Institut für Physiotherapie, Posture and Motion Group, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Deutschland. norman.best@med.uni-jena.de. 3. Institut für Physiotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Deutschland. 4. Forschungsberatungsstelle der Ärztevereinigung für Manuelle Medizin (ÄMM), Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standing can be understood as a motor process in addition to the stereotypes of movement described by Janda. Atypical stress during standing leads to overstraining of myofascial structures and to pain. The search for a specific examination possibility with the prospect of individual therapy recommendations was the reason for the development of this score. METHODOLOGY: In this study 80 healthy volunteers were examined for their stance stability by means of established as well as proportionally newly described test procedures. The equally weighted results were combined into a score and its standard values were determined. RESULTS: For the age group 18-44 years old the norm is the completion of 10 out of the total of 13 individual tasks. For the age group 45-59 years old, according to current measurements 8 out of 13 achieved points are the norm. In the age group from the age of 60 years onwards, no reliable statements can so far be made. DISCUSSION: The age group up to 44 years old provided reliable data. The age group above that shows at least a clear trend. The existing tests and scores are increasingly concerned with the risk of falling and the dexterity in movements and complex tasks. The status as a motor stereotype has not yet been described. After an examination using the Jena standing stability (JESS) score it is possible to make statements about individual therapy priorities. CONCLUSION: The JESS score is a practicable test to verify the standing stereotype. The extension of the norm group by including further study participants will decide on a stabilization or modification of the current results. The testing of further cohorts will show to what extent these items are sensitive to changes caused by training methods and whether the score can also be used to congruently map clinical changes.
BACKGROUND: Standing can be understood as a motor process in addition to the stereotypes of movement described by Janda. Atypical stress during standing leads to overstraining of myofascial structures and to pain. The search for a specific examination possibility with the prospect of individual therapy recommendations was the reason for the development of this score. METHODOLOGY: In this study 80 healthy volunteers were examined for their stance stability by means of established as well as proportionally newly described test procedures. The equally weighted results were combined into a score and its standard values were determined. RESULTS: For the age group 18-44 years old the norm is the completion of 10 out of the total of 13 individual tasks. For the age group 45-59 years old, according to current measurements 8 out of 13 achieved points are the norm. In the age group from the age of 60 years onwards, no reliable statements can so far be made. DISCUSSION: The age group up to 44 years old provided reliable data. The age group above that shows at least a clear trend. The existing tests and scores are increasingly concerned with the risk of falling and the dexterity in movements and complex tasks. The status as a motor stereotype has not yet been described. After an examination using the Jena standing stability (JESS) score it is possible to make statements about individual therapy priorities. CONCLUSION: The JESS score is a practicable test to verify the standing stereotype. The extension of the norm group by including further study participants will decide on a stabilization or modification of the current results. The testing of further cohorts will show to what extent these items are sensitive to changes caused by training methods and whether the score can also be used to congruently map clinical changes.