Abstract：
Clinically feasible and reliable methods to measure motor control in people with low back pain (LBP) are lacking. This reliability and measurement error study design (i.e. repeated measurements in stable patients) aimed to determine the intra- and interrater reliability, and measurement errors of several parameters for two clinical lumbar motor control tests.
Participants 18-65 years of age, with current or a history of LBP performed a spiral tracking task (n = 33; i.e., tracing a spiral on a computer monitor by making spinal movements) or a repositioning task (n = 34; i.e., returning the trunk to a predefined position). Accelerometers were used to measure trunk positions. To explore the potential of these tests, we evaluated a broad range of parameters. To assess intra- and interrater reliability, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1) for absolute agreement), standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change for each parameter.
Overall, the interrater reliability of the spiral tracking test was good (ICC>0.75). The reliability of the second and third trial revealed higher ICC values compared to the reliability of the first two trials. The intra- and interrater reliability of the repositioning test was overall poor (ICC <0.5, with the exception of trunk inclination: ICC: 0.5 to 0.75).
The reliability and set-up of the spiral tracking test supports its feasibility for clinical use. Considering the poor reliability of the repositioning test, it is doubtful whether further development of this measurement protocol is indicated. Only for the direction trunk inclination further standardisation might be warranted.
Participants 18-65 years of age, with current or a history of LBP performed a spiral tracking task (n = 33; i.e., tracing a spiral on a computer monitor by making spinal movements) or a repositioning task (n = 34; i.e., returning the trunk to a predefined position). Accelerometers were used to measure trunk positions. To explore the potential of these tests, we evaluated a broad range of parameters. To assess intra- and interrater reliability, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1) for absolute agreement), standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change for each parameter.
Overall, the interrater reliability of the spiral tracking test was good (ICC>0.75). The reliability of the second and third trial revealed higher ICC values compared to the reliability of the first two trials. The intra- and interrater reliability of the repositioning test was overall poor (ICC <0.5, with the exception of trunk inclination: ICC: 0.5 to 0.75).
The reliability and set-up of the spiral tracking test supports its feasibility for clinical use. Considering the poor reliability of the repositioning test, it is doubtful whether further development of this measurement protocol is indicated. Only for the direction trunk inclination further standardisation might be warranted.
摘要：
背景：缺乏临床上可行且可靠的方法来测量腰背痛（LBP）患者的运动控制。这种可靠性和测量误差研究设计（即在稳定患者中重复测量）旨在确定评估者内和评估者间的可靠性，和两项临床腰椎运动控制试验的几个参数的测量误差。
方法：18-65岁的参与者，使用当前或历史的LBP执行了螺旋跟踪任务(n=33；即，通过脊柱运动在计算机监视器上跟踪螺旋)或重新定位任务(n=34；即将树干返回到预定义的位置)。加速度计用于测量树干位置。为了探索这些测试的潜力，我们评估了广泛的参数。为了评估评估者内和评估者间的可靠性，我们计算了组内相关系数(绝对一致性的ICC(2,1))，测量的标准误差和每个参数的最小可检测变化。
结果：总体而言，螺旋跟踪测试的评分者间可靠性良好(ICC>0.75)。与前两次试验的可靠性相比，第二次和第三次试验的可靠性显示出更高的ICC值。重新定位测试的内部和中间可靠性总体较差（ICC<0.5，躯干倾斜度除外：ICC：0.5至0.75）。
结论：螺旋追踪测试的可靠性和设置支持其临床应用的可行性。考虑到重新定位试验的可靠性差,是否表明该测量协议的进一步发展值得怀疑。仅对于躯干倾斜的方向，可能需要进一步标准化。
方法：18-65岁的参与者，使用当前或历史的LBP执行了螺旋跟踪任务(n=33；即，通过脊柱运动在计算机监视器上跟踪螺旋)或重新定位任务(n=34；即将树干返回到预定义的位置)。加速度计用于测量树干位置。为了探索这些测试的潜力，我们评估了广泛的参数。为了评估评估者内和评估者间的可靠性，我们计算了组内相关系数(绝对一致性的ICC(2,1))，测量的标准误差和每个参数的最小可检测变化。
结果：总体而言，螺旋跟踪测试的评分者间可靠性良好(ICC>0.75)。与前两次试验的可靠性相比，第二次和第三次试验的可靠性显示出更高的ICC值。重新定位测试的内部和中间可靠性总体较差（ICC<0.5，躯干倾斜度除外：ICC：0.5至0.75）。
结论：螺旋追踪测试的可靠性和设置支持其临床应用的可行性。考虑到重新定位试验的可靠性差,是否表明该测量协议的进一步发展值得怀疑。仅对于躯干倾斜的方向，可能需要进一步标准化。
