Pelvic girdle pain and relevance of ASLR testing: A ... - Cindy Verheul

Recommendations

Info

Summary: The validity has been looked at out of many angles. However, it shows that the sensitivity of the ASLR test scores high with a cut-off score of 0-1. After that, the score was reduced to 66% for the cut-off score of 2-3. The speficity for all scores on the ASLR test high. (J Mens et al 2001) In the most recent study by Mens et al. these values are confirmed. (J. M. A. Mens et al 2012) The test - re-test reliability scores also high. (J Mens et al 2001) With respect to measuring the value of the ASLR test to the degree of rehabilitation, a group of tests has been examined which belonged to the group: hip muscle strength. The ASLR test belongs of course also to this group of tests. The group of tests scored highest in this study. (J Mens et al 2002c) The objective scores and the subjective scores of the ASLR test do not match. (J Mens et al 2010) This means that the observed improvement is not shown by the ASLR test. Motivation for study The sensitivity of the ASLR test is good at a cut-off score of 0-1, however, the higher the score the greater the decrease in the sensitivity of the ASLR test is seen. This indicates that especially at a more severe degree of pelvic instability, less can be trusted on the test. Also as there are several hip movements that can creat a movement in the SI joint and perhaps there can also be differences in the form, function and location of the SI joints, it seems unlikely that this test alone is sufficient to test pelvic instability . To test the instability more complete. In this present study there is chosen to test beside the ASLR test all other hip movements as well. First, without compression and then also with compression. Because when increasing the force closure when there is a instability, these can be made undone. 2.5 The questionaires A next mean which can contribute to the diagnosis of pelvic pain and pelvic instability is the use of a questionnaire. We know that Low back pain is a common symptom. 80% of people have or suffer from low back pain. The restrictions in daily activities due to the pain causes social and economic problems all around the world. This has led to the development of pain questionnaires, because there is a need for an instrument that can show the impact of low back pain. There are many systems developed in recent years in which the patient can score the complaints. (Longo et al 2010) All these systems measure different aspects, some are designed for health-related aspects, social phenomena while a number of questionnaires aimed at the Osteopathie Schule Deutschland Dresden International University Page 29
various aspects of the psychological profile of the patient. (Andersen et al 2006) Below, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire is discussed. This questionnaire measures the physical and psychosocial situation of the patient. This in contrary to other existing questionnaires. 2.5.1 Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) The Dallas Pain Questionnaire test the impact chronic back pain on four aspects of daily life. The classification of acute or chronic back pain is primarily done on the basis of the time that the pain is present. In the case of pelvic instability shows that these people take longer to recover The combination of these four aspects makes the Dallas Pain Questionnaire special because most questionnaires usually focus on the psychological aspects or on the physical aspects. For example the Quebec Pain and Disability Scale is only aimed to test the physical aspects in the patient’s daily life. There is no focus on psychosocial aspects of the pain. However as we know, during severe pain complaints, this pain has much influence on the psychosocial life of the patient. It is therefore advisable to use an instrument where the psychosocial functioning of a patient exposed. Resuming the related studies The Dallas Pain questionnaire as it is examined by Lawlis et al appears to be a good instrument. The study of Wilhelm et al. show that when the DPQ is used as a tool to evaluate clinical changes it shows to be less sensitive than the QBPDS. In this analysis, however, when the methodology is evaluated, we see that the population is small, and even more important, the analysis is based on a retrospective examination of medical records that were completed by physicians and physiotherapists where data are lacking. So this research seems to be not fully reliable. Perhaps the sensitivity of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire should also be evaluated at different stages of low back pain (acute, subacute and chronic). In this way we can broaden our opinion on the suitability of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire for the various stages of low back pain. And probably we would also be able to distinguish the different aspects of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire during these different stages of low back pain. Osteopathie Schule Deutschland Dresden International University Page 30
Page 1 and 2: pelvic girdle pain and relevance of
Page 3 and 4: Conformity declaration Author: Joha
Page 5 and 6: 5.2.2 Hypothesis 2 ................
Page 7 and 8: Figure/Table # List of tables Descr
Page 9 and 10: Figure/Table # List of figures Desc
Page 11 and 12: 1. Introduction This Master researc
Page 13 and 14: 2. Basics This study aims to assess
Page 15 and 16: As third reasons there are the ridg
Page 17 and 18: The anterior oblique sling: The ant
Page 19 and 20: This description of the symptoms co
Page 21 and 22: Table 2: Table by Bastiaanssen made
Page 23 and 24: which the period of measurement aft
Page 25 and 26: 2.3.2 Clinical tests These are divi
Page 27 and 28: For women with pregnancy-related po
Page 29: muscle strength. The highest score
Page 33 and 34: 3. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 H0: The
Page 35 and 36: 4. Materials and Methods 4.1 Type o
Page 37 and 38: These physical tests were first per
Page 39 and 40: : With these data, I calculated how
Page 41 and 42: No further differentiation was made
Page 43 and 44: Initial posture therapist two: this
Page 45 and 46: The columns contain the following i
Page 47 and 48: 5. Results 5.1 Population character
Page 49 and 50: Figure 2: Characteristics of the gr
Page 51 and 52: Following test combinations are com
Page 53 and 54: Table 15: Hypothesis 1: Characteris
Page 55 and 56: There are no significant difference
Page 57 and 58: Figure 6: Hypothesis 2: Different s
Page 59 and 60: Figure 8: Hypothesis 3: Characteris
Page 61 and 62: Figure 9: Hypothesis 3: Score on th
Page 63 and 64: Table 28: Hypothesis 4: Differences
Page 65 and 66: Figure 11: Hypothesis 4: Score on t
Page 67 and 68: Table 33: Hypothesis 5: Total score
Page 69 and 70: Characteristics on negative physica
Page 71 and 72: Characteristics and differences: Th
Page 73 and 74: We have also seen that for 35% of t
Page 75 and 76: 6.2.1 Population The recruitment of
Page 77 and 78: score of 2-3. From the perspective
Page 79 and 80: A reason that these women do not sc
Page 81 and 82:
pain above the lumbar region. Howev
Page 83 and 84:
tests exist out of the ASLR + the o
Page 85 and 86:
As already mentioned, in the group
Page 87 and 88:
6.3.6 Hypothesis 6 H0: There is no
Page 89 and 90:
o Also significant differences were
Page 91 and 92:
Gutke, A., Josefsson, A. & Oberg, B
Page 93 and 94:
Vleeming, A, 2007. The role of the
Page 95 and 96:
10 Appendix 10.1 Tables In this sec
Page 97 and 98:
Prevalence of Pregnancy related LBP
Page 99 and 100:
Prevalence of Pregnancy related LBP
Page 101 and 102:
Table 12: Independent sample test f
Page 103 and 104:
Table 25: Hypothesis 3: Independent
Page 105 and 106:
10.2 Informed Consent Permission-ba
Page 107 and 108:
Strookje (leaflet) Ik wil meewerken
Page 109 and 110:
10.5 Dallas Pain Questionaire Naam_
Page 111 and 112:
Niet veranderd Drastisch veranderd
Page 113:
pelvic girdle pain and relevance of
show all

Pelvic girdle pain and relevance of ASLR testing: A ... - Cindy Verheul

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?